In Re Joseph N.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that mother could appeal order reaffirming permanency plan of reunification while shifting physical custody from foster care to father, because order “represented a meaningful shift in direction vis a vis [mother], and possible restoration of her rights as a parent”
• order changing a permanency plan for foster care placement to a permanency plan for temporary supervised custody for the child’s father
• order effectively broadening permanency plan to parent’s detriment by “expand[ing] the universe of persons eligible for reunification” was immediately appealable
• “The question we must answer [on] appeal is whether the court’s [] order effectuated a detrimental change to [parent’s] custody rights falling within Section 12-303(3)(x).”
• order immediately appealable where plan remained reunification but juvenile court “shift[ed] [child’s] physical custody from foster care to his father”
• “This CINA appeal is not moot because a controversy is alive when the subsequent review hearing order may have been influenced by an error made in the earlier review hearing order.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).