Case # | Name | Category | Court | Judge | Published |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
E082401
|
In re D.M.
Termination of parental rights was appropriate despite failure to inquire with extended family regarding child's possible indigenous heritage because the child was placed in temporary custody pursuant to a warrant. |
Dependency |
|
F. Menetrez | May 9, 2024 |
B318672
|
In re Kieran S.
Despite *In re N.R.*'s ruling, where parent's substance abuse put child at substantial risk of serious physical harm, juvenile court's decision to remove child from parent was appropriate. |
Dependency |
|
J. Segal | May 7, 2024 |
C099704
|
H.A. v. Superior Court (San Joaquin County Human Services Agency)
Agency and juvenile court failed to meet Indian Child Welfare Act's statutory duty to further inquire when its investigation ceased after parents validated they had no Native American background. |
Dependency |
|
R. Robie | May 6, 2024 |
B330106
|
In re S.G.
Once minor parent consistently failed to utilize reunification services, termination of parental rights was appropriate to protect the child's need for prompt resolution of his custody. |
Dependency |
|
R. Adams | Apr. 1, 2024 |
B326320
|
In re Ca.M.
Appellate court did not need to review the sufficiency of domestic violence evidence to uphold removal order because there was ample evidence the children were at risk from father's alcohol abuse. |
Dependency |
|
L. Baker | Mar. 20, 2024 |
B333788
|
F.K. v. Superior Court (Santa Barbara County Child Welfare Services)
Juvenile court was not required to terminate reunification services after six months even though it found mother had not substantially complied with her case plan. |
Dependency |
|
H. Baltodano | Mar. 19, 2024 |
B329192
|
In re F.V.
There was insufficient evidence of future risk to minor--who was sent into the U.S. alone when her father was unable to cross the border--to support juvenile court's jurisdiction. |
Dependency |
|
H. Bendix | Mar. 7, 2024 |
E080888
|
In re Samantha F.
Duty of inquiry about child's possible Native American ancestry extended to all available family members regardless of how child was removed from custody. |
Dependency |
|
M. Raphael | Feb. 26, 2024 |
D082615
|
In re H.D.
Because under Welfare and Institutions Code Section 311 "probation officer" was analogous to "social worker," juvenile court had authority to issue restraining order against juvenile's mother. |
Dependency |
|
J. Castillo | Feb. 16, 2024 |
B324755
|
In re Lilianna C.
Welfare and Institutions Code Section 213.5 allows the juvenile court to issue permanent restraining order in situations in which the petition was filed by someone other than a probation officer. |
Dependency |
|
B. Hoffstadt | Feb. 12, 2024 |
B327716
|
In re R.M.
Juvenile court improperly made minor a dependent child where parents were incarcerated for murder but capable of making preparations for relatives to care for the child. |
Dependency |
|
L. Lavin | Feb. 1, 2024 |
C097776
|
In re A.K.
Order terminating biological father's parental rights was reversed after juvenile court and County agency failed to follow statutorily-mandated notice requirements. |
Dependency |
|
S. Boulware Eurie | Jan. 31, 2024 |
B321592
|
In re P.H., Jr.
Indian Child Welfare Act did not require tribal notice of dependency proceedings without a reason to know the child was a Native child despite statements regarding parents' possible tribal ancestry. |
Dependency |
|
L. Baker | Jan. 17, 2024 |
B331041
|
L.C. v. Superior Court (Los Angeles County Dept. of Children and Family Services)
Because the mother had been sober and stayed in contact, there was not substantial evidence supporting the juvenile court's finding that minor was at a substantial risk of detriment. |
Dependency |
|
G. Feuer | Jan. 17, 2024 |
F086109
|
In re L.B.
Juvenile court's refusal to apply Welfare and Institutions Code Section 361.5(b)(13)'s bypass provision (for resisting substance abuse treatment) to determine eligibility for reunification services was erroneous. |
Dependency |
|
J. Detjen | Jan. 11, 2024 |
A167363
|
In re L.B.
Inquiry into dependent child's possible Native ancestry was inadequate where the record indicated the existence of extended family members that were not asked whether the child was a Native child. |
Dependency |
|
J. Hiramoto | Jan. 3, 2024 |
S274943
|
In re N.R.
For purposes of obtaining dependency court jurisdiction, parental substance abuse does not require medical professional diagnosis. |
Dependency |
|
P. Guerrero | Dec. 15, 2023 |
B326119
|
In re Kayla W.
Court did not violate UCCJEA in terminating parental rights without consulting Nevada court, which had already relinquished jurisdiction. |
Dependency |
|
L. Edmon | Nov. 16, 2023 |
E080765
|
In re R.Q.
Order placing dependent minor with mere biological father was appropriate despite presumed father's objection where that placement was consistent with the best interest of the child. |
Dependency |
|
A. McKinster | Oct. 18, 2023 |
C097911
|
In re C.L.
Under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), the duty to inquire of extended family members regarding the child's ancestry applies when removal is made with or without warrant. |
Dependency |
|
S. Mesiwala | Oct. 16, 2023 |
B317838
|
In re Jose C.
Parent's failure to appeal order terminating jurisdiction, which included ruling on custody order, mooted his appeal. |
Dependency |
|
D. Perluss | Oct. 11, 2023 |
B318674
|
In re N.F.
Section 388 petition to reinstate reunification services could not be used to allege Indian Child Welfare Act violation that had been part of a permanency order decided a year prior. |
Dependency |
|
A. Egerton | Sep. 7, 2023 |
A166527
|
In re V.C.
Rejecting other appellate opinions to the contrary, the duty to make ICWA inquiry of "extended family members" applies even if the children were not taken into "temporary custody" pursuant to Section 306. |
Dependency |
|
J. Richman | Sep. 7, 2023 |
E079941
|
In re R.F.
Because notice to grandmother regarding her grandchildren's emergency removal from her care was inadequate, her objection to the removal was not untimely. |
Dependency |
|
R. Fields | Aug. 23, 2023 |
B321967
|
In re Jayden M.
The reasonableness of a parent's efforts to address a problem that led to termination of parental rights is to be measured from the point at which the first sibling or half sibling is removed for the same reasons that underlie the current case. |
Dependency |
|
B. Hoffstadt | Jul. 31, 2023 |
E080389
|
In re Delila D.
Social worker had a duty to inquire as to a child's possible Native American ancestry regardless of how the child was removed--with or without a warrant. |
Dependency |
|
M. Slough | Jul. 25, 2023 |
D081568
|
In re M.D.
Assuming dependency jurisdiction was appropriate where evidence showed jurisdiction was based on conditions that posed a risk of harm to the child and not solely the father's indigence. |
Dependency |
|
T. Do | Jul. 21, 2023 |
D081396
|
In re D.P.
Adoptive parents of dependent child's siblings were not entitled to relative placement preference because they were not relatives entitled to the preference under the plain language of the statute. |
Dependency |
|
R. Huffman | Jul. 3, 2023 |
B322472
|
In re H.B.
Family services department's inquiry under ICWA into child's potential Indian heritage was adequate where the department asked two generations of relatives from both sides of the family about such heritage. |
Dependency |
|
E. Grimes | Jun. 21, 2023 |
A166037
|
In re Damari Y.
Father entitled to hearing on petition to modify order terminating reunification services where new evidence showed his incarceration during COVID-19 pandemic may have denied him access to reasonable reunification services. |
Dependency |
|
M. Miller | Jun. 20, 2023 |