Case # | Name | Category | Court | Judge | Published |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
D048841
|
Marriage of Forrest & Eaddy
Where evidence shows Australia is child's country of habitual residence, denial of mother's petition seeking return of daughter is not proper. |
Family Law |
|
Mar. 28, 2007 | |
B184521
|
Marriage of Geraci
Where evidence was insufficient to prove general partnership existed between husband and wife, post-separation earnings were not community property. |
Family Law |
|
Mar. 28, 2007 | |
G037601
|
Kevin N., a Minor
Although reunification services may be limited to six months, they may not be denied to incarcerated parent, absent finding of detriment to children. |
Family Law |
|
Mar. 28, 2007 | |
H029176
|
Marriage of Smith
Court order requiring husband to pay wife percentage of disability payments and participate in military Survivor's Benefit Plan is not abuse of discretion. |
Family Law |
|
Mar. 23, 2007 | |
G037558
|
Hadley B., a Minor
In case involving dependency jurisdictional hearing, court erroneously declines to hear evidence of acts that occurred in other counties. |
Family Law |
|
Mar. 23, 2007 | |
C047305
|
Marriage of Leni
Community property may be used to support one spouse's needy parent. |
Family Law |
|
Mar. 21, 2007 | |
D048200
|
Terrance B., a Minor
Denial of mother's petition for modification is proper where her prior appeal resulted in limited reversal and remand. |
Family Law |
|
Mar. 21, 2007 | |
G037590
|
Lauren R., a Minor
Relative placement preference is only applicable to temporary placement of child, not adoptions, but caretaker preference is applicable to adoptions. |
Family Law |
|
Mar. 20, 2007 | |
D048652
|
Nickolas F. v. Superior Court (San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency)
Denial of family reunification services is proper where father was involved in prior incident of child abuse. |
Family Law |
|
Mar. 20, 2007 | |
B188224
|
Marriage of Burkle
Wife's separate civil lawsuit, filed while marital dissolution proceeding was pending, was properly dismissed. |
Family Law |
|
Mar. 20, 2007 | |
G034442
|
Niko v. Foreman
Modification of child custody judgment, by which mother was authorized to relocate child, is proper. |
Family Law |
|
Mar. 20, 2007 | |
E038464
|
Marriage of Paillier
California court had no authority to modify French divorce decree by ordering child to be returned to father in France. |
Family Law |
|
Mar. 20, 2007 | |
C051132
|
Stone v. Davis
Trial court's order transferring continuing, exclusive jurisdiction over child support to another state was in error. |
Family Law |
|
Mar. 14, 2007 | |
D048994
|
Robert A., a Minor
Agency aware of Indian child's heritage must notify tribe of dependency proceedings under Indian Child Welfare Act. |
Family Law |
|
Mar. 9, 2007 | |
B182096
|
Asfaw v. Woldberhan
Depreciation of rental properties may not be deducted for purposes of calculating child support under Family Code Sections 4058 and 4059. |
Family Law |
|
Mar. 7, 2007 | |
B195282
|
Marilyn A., a Minor
Juvenile court should retain dependency jurisdiction and order family maintenance services to protect at-risk children returned to parental custody. |
Family Law |
|
Mar. 6, 2007 | |
B188863
|
James F., a Minor
Juvenile court's error in appointing guardian ad litem for father was structural error requiring reversal of order terminating father's parental rights. |
Family Law |
|
Feb. 16, 2007 | |
G034582
|
Marriage of Ackerman
Court may apply its 'commonsense view' to expert's goodwill valuation methodology to determine valuation of self-employed spouse's sole proprietorship. |
Family Law |
|
Feb. 16, 2007 | |
D048962
|
Williams v. Superior Court (Mayes)
Father's rights are not violated where court properly appoints maternal grandmother as guardian ad litem for his daughters. |
Family Law |
|
Feb. 16, 2007 | |
B186507
|
Marriage of Green
Entry of marital dissolution judgment ordering payment of attorney fees gave attorneys independent statutory right to enforce judgment under Family Code Section 272. |
Family Law |
|
Feb. 5, 2007 | |
B194013
|
Ricardo V. v. Superior Court (Los Angeles County Dept. of Children and Family Services)
In dependency case, referee's order was not automatically vacated upon grant of party's request for rehearing. |
Family Law |
|
Feb. 2, 2007 | |
B182232
|
Said v. Jegan
Denial of petition to determine that plaintiff is not father is improper where evidence shows plaintiff may qualify as presumed father. |
Family Law |
|
Jan. 30, 2007 | |
D047891
|
Cheryl P. v. Superior Court (San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency)
Court improperly denied reunification services where parents made reasonable efforts to treat problems that led to removal of child. |
Family Law |
|
Jan. 29, 2007 | |
A112525
|
M.V., A Minor
Petition to modify placement of foster child is improperly granted where court did not consider what would serve child's best interests. |
Family Law |
|
Jan. 24, 2007 | |
B190595
|
Kobe A., a Minor
Although notice of dependency proceedings to alleged father was not in accordance with statutory requirements, error was harmless. |
Family Law |
|
Jan. 23, 2007 | |
D048807
|
Wayne F. v. Superior Court (San Diego County Health & Human Services Agency)
Caretakers are entitled to fully participate in removal hearings if they are designated as prospective adoptive parents. |
Family Law |
|
Jan. 8, 2007 | |
D048471
|
H.G., a Minor
Termination of parental rights is not proper where court failed to consider whether placement of child with grandparents was not appropriate. |
Family Law |
|
Jan. 8, 2007 | |
D047847
|
A.U., a Minor
Parental rights cannot be terminated when there was improper notice to BIA and tribes of pending dependency proceeding for Indian child. |
Family Law |
|
Jan. 8, 2007 | |
G034582
|
Marriage of Ackerman
Court may apply its 'commonsense view' to expert's goodwill valuation methodology to determine valuation of self-employed spouse's sole proprietorship. |
Family Law |
|
Jan. 2, 2007 | |
A112433
|
Thomas R., a Minor
Where parental rights were terminated, denial of opportunity to cross-examine prospective adoptive parents is not proper. |
Family Law |
|
Dec. 20, 2006 |