In re J.O., No. B211535

By FindLaw Staff on October 08, 2009 | Last updated on March 21, 2019

In dependency proceedings, trial court's jurisdictional findings and orders that pertained to plaintiff despite having ruled that he was not the presumed father, are affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded where: 1) the evidence established plaintiff's presumed father status; 2) the finding of jurisdiction under Welfare and Institutions Code, section 300(b) is reversed as there is no causal nexus between the court's findings of serious injury and the findings relating to plaintiff; 3) court's finding of jurisdiction under section 300(g) is affirmed as it is supported by plaintiff's failure to provide financial support for over a decade combined with his demonstrated lack of interest in the children's welfare; and 4) on remand, the trial court must make the inquiry concerning plaintiff's possible Indian ancestry required by ICWA and the California Rules of Court.     

Read In re J.O., No. B211535

Filed October 7, 2009


Opinion by Judge Manella


For Appellant:  Lori Fields, under appointment of the Court of Appeal

For Appelle:  Raymond G. Fortner, County Counsel, James M. Owens, Assistant County Counsel and Byron G. Shibata, Senior Associate County Counsel

Copied to clipboard