This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Nicholas E., a Minor

Juvenile court may not skip evidentiary hearing on jurisdiction or apply abstention rule merely because of ongoing custody fight in family court.





Cite as

2015 DJDAR 5070

Published

May 7, 2015

Filing Date

May 6, 2015


In re NICHOLAS E

In re NICHOLAS E. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.

 

 

LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.

SUSAN E. et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

 

No. B256182

(Los Angeles County

Super. Ct. No. DK02119)

California Courts of Appeal

Second Appellate District

Division Two

Filed May 7, 2015

 

 

ORDER MODIFYING OPINION

AND DENYING REHEARING

 

NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT

 

THE COURT:*

 

It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on April 30, 2015, be modified as follows:

 

1.  On page 2, the last paragraph, line 5, the words ?legal and physical? are to be inserted between the words ?father? and ?custody? so that the sentence reads:

     Citing In re A.G. (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 675 (In re A.G.), mother argued that the      divorce and child custody proceedings pending in family court had resulted in an   order granting father legal and physical custody of Lauren, Sarah and Zachary, and     that this family court order obviated any risk of physical or emotional harm posed      by mother.

 

2.  On page 3, line 3, the word ?physical? is to be inserted between the words ?had? and ?custody? so that the sentence reads:

     Father joined in the motion except as to Nicholas (over whom mother still had     physical custody), as did all the attorneys for the children.

 

 

3.  On page 3, the first full paragraph, line 8, the word ?physical? is to be inserted between the words ?him? and ?custody? so that the sentence reads:

 

     The court dismissed the petition ?with prejudice? as to Lauren, Sarah and Zachary,   but ?without prejudice? as to Nicholas, (to enable father to obtain a family court      order awarding him physical custody of Nicholas, to which mother agreed not to      object).

 

     There is no change in the judgment.

     Appellant?s petition for rehearing is denied.

     CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION.

 

*            ASHMANN-GERST, Acting P.J., CHAVEZ, J., HOFFSTADT, J.

#267694

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email Jeremy_Ellis@dailyjournal.com for prices.
Direct dial: 213-229-5424