Case # | Name | Category | Court | Judge | Published |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
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 |
A166150
|
Modification: In re S.F
Child was improperly removed from father's physical custody when presented evidence could not meet heightened standard required for removal. |
Dependency |
|
K. Banke | Jun. 12, 2023 |
A165931
|
In re Jonathan C.M.
Nonminor dependent's best interests must be considered before terminating the juvenile court's continuing jurisdiction despite the nonminor dependent's lack of participation in a transitional independent living case plan. |
Dependency |
|
M. Miller | May 25, 2023 |
E080223
|
In re I.E.
Mother could not show that parental benefit exception applied because there was no evidence of the type of attachment that would cause her daughter to suffer if parental rights were terminated. |
Dependency |
|
A. McKinster | May 19, 2023 |
E079651
|
In re Ja.O.
Because children were placed into protective custody pursuant to a warrant, further inquiry as to children's possible Native American ancestry was not required. |
Dependency |
|
F. Menetrez | May 19, 2023 |
A166532
|
In re A.H.
Distant extended family member's appeal was dismissed because she lacked a legally cognizable interest in minor child's placement and thus had no standing to appeal the juvenile court's decision. |
Dependency |
|
T. Stewart | May 18, 2023 |
A166150
|
In re S.F.
Child was improperly removed from father's physical custody when presented evidence could not meet heightened standard required for removal. |
Dependency |
|
K. Banke | May 18, 2023 |
E078696
|
In re C.P.
Because grandparents were approved as a resource family for their grandchild, no further adoption home study approval was necessary for juvenile court to allow grandparents' adoption of grandchild. |
Dependency |
|
M. Raphael | May 9, 2023 |
A165789
|
In re E.W.
Welfare agency reliably answered the question of whether dependent child had Native American ancestry in light of declarations by both parents and interviews with extended family members. |
Dependency |
|
M. Markman | May 9, 2023 |
B322778
|
In re L.C.
Although it had not been raised below, failure to conduct jurisdictional inquiry into family's home state required by statute was not an issue that could be forfeited by litigants' inaction. |
Dependency |
|
D. Kim | Apr. 20, 2023 |
B318794
|
In re S.S.
Case required reversal and remand for child welfare agency to question three family members, of whom the agency had contact information for, as to child's potential Native American ancestry. |
Dependency |
|
J. Wiley | Apr. 18, 2023 |
F083805
|
In re Damian L.
Juvenile court could continue hearings beyond time limits within which they were required to be held but could not ignore statutory time limits on the provision of family reunification services. |
Dependency |
|
C. Poochigian | Apr. 13, 2023 |
E080073
|
In re Robert F.
Under the Indian Child Welfare Act, duty to ask extended family members about child's possible Native American ancestry was not applicable because minor was placed in protective rather than temporary custody. |
Dependency |
|
F. Menetrez | Apr. 13, 2023 |
S271809
|
Michael G. v. Superior Court (Orange County Social Services Agency)
Juvenile court was not required to grant extension of reunification services even though services provided to a father by the Social Services Agency during an 18-month extension were not reasonable. |
Dependency |
|
L. Kruger | Apr. 7, 2023 |
C096775
|
In re L.J.
Mother's recordings taken during visits with her child were inadmissible at hearing for termination of parental rights because the child was a ward of the juvenile court and the child's counsel did not consent to the recordings. |
Dependency |
|
S. McAdam | Mar. 24, 2023 |
G061648
|
A.H. v. Superior Court (Orange County Social Services Agency)
Juvenile court's finding of subject matter jurisdiction was supported by substantial evidence where a court from children's home state declined to exercise jurisdiction. |
Dependency |
|
E. Moore | Mar. 21, 2023 |
B313754
|
In re J.M.
Termination of juvenile court's jurisdiction and order granting sole physical custody to mother was proper because father failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence conditions justifying continued supervision. |
Dependency |
|
A. Collins | Mar. 13, 2023 |
B319258
|
In re Matthew M.
Juvenile court did not abuse its discretion when it ordered COVID-19 vaccination for 12-year old court dependent over mother's objections. |
Dependency |
|
D. Perluss | Mar. 7, 2023 |
E079017
|
Modification: D.S. v. Superior Court (San Bernardino County Children and Family Services)
Mother's adoptive status did not dismiss juvenile court and child welfare agency's duty to further inquire as to adopted child's possible Native American ancestry. |
Dependency |
|
R. Fields | Feb. 23, 2023 |
E079176
|
In re A.A.
Children were not considered "Indian" under the Indian Child Welfare Act because their blood quantum was too low to qualify for Jemez Pueblo tribe membership. |
Dependency |
|
C. Codrington | Feb. 21, 2023 |
A165001
|
In re L.B.
Amendments to Welfare and Institutions Code Section 300(b) did not affect case when basis for jurisdiction was child's risk to mother's history of ongoing domestic violence. |
Dependency |
|
V. Swope | Feb. 21, 2023 |
E079017
|
D.S. v. Superior Court (San Bernardino County Children and Family Services)
Mother's adoptive status did not dismiss juvenile court and child welfare agency's duty to further inquire as to adopted child's possible Native American ancestry. |
Dependency |
|
R. Fields | Feb. 16, 2023 |
B321426
|
In re Jayden G.
Los Angeles Department of Children and Family Services failed to exercise due diligence in locating minor's father because it did not utilize specific information provided by mother in its searches. |
Dependency |
|
M. Stratton | Feb. 15, 2023 |
A165424
|
In re M.C.
Child adjudged dependent should have been placed with parent who requested custody where there was not clear and convincing evidence such placement would be detrimental to the child. |
Dependency |
|
M. Markman | Feb. 8, 2023 |
B315297
|
In re M.V.
Psychological evaluator's bonding study of minor's relationship with her parents was improper because it did not focus on the psychological relationship between the minor and her parents. |
Dependency |
|
M. Stratton | Jan. 31, 2023 |
E079291
|
In re T.R.
To deny reunification services under Welfare and Institutions Code Section 361.5(b)(6), a dependency judge must state, on the record, the specific bases for denial. |
Dependency |
|
M. Slough | Jan. 30, 2023 |
B322164
|
In re N.R.
Juvenile court did not err by returning one child to a parent but terminating parental rights to the other child because the other child posed greater parenting challenges. |
Dependency |
|
E. Grimes | Jan. 30, 2023 |
S267429
|
In re D.P.
While parents' appeal of a finding of neglect was moot, a court may still exercise discretionary review if it believes review will protect the child and preserve the family. |
Dependency |
|
G. Liu | Jan. 20, 2023 |