Case # | Name | Category | Court | Judge | Published |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
A168282
|
In re Taylor C.
Respondent was statutorily ineligible for sealing of juvenile records because of an offense requiring sex offender registration even though juvenile court dismissed his wardship petitions in the interests of justice. |
Juveniles |
|
I. Petrou | Apr. 18, 2024 |
E082250
|
Modification: In re Miguel R.
In examining the factors to determine a minor's amenability to rehabilitation, no single factor is statutorily required to be given greater weight. |
Juveniles |
|
F. Menetrez | Mar. 8, 2024 |
C099115
|
In re J.S.
Ward of the court has "satisfactorily completed" probation when there are no new findings of wardship involving moral turpitude or felony convictions during probation. |
Juveniles |
|
E. Duarte | Mar. 7, 2024 |
E082250
|
In re Miguel R.
In examining the factors to determine a minor's amenability to rehabilitation, no single factor is statutorily required to be given greater weight. |
Juveniles |
|
F. Menetrez | Mar. 4, 2024 |
A166408
|
In re M.B.
In disagreement with earlier Court of Appeal precedent, a juvenile court has jurisdiction to modify a commitment order after the term of confinement begins. |
Juveniles |
|
J. Streeter | Feb. 2, 2024 |
C098376
|
In re K.B.
Convictions must be for a felony offense or a misdemeanor involving moral turpitude to disqualify a minor from automatic dismissal of their juvenile justice petition. |
Juveniles |
|
S. Boulware Eurie | Jan. 31, 2024 |
A166850
|
Modification: In re Tony R.
Juvenile ward who had been substantially complying with his rehabilitation plan was not presumptively entitled to a six-month reduction in his baseline term of confinement. |
Juveniles |
|
T. Stewart | Jan. 30, 2024 |
A166850
|
In re Tony R.
Juvenile ward who had been substantially complying with his rehabilitation plan was not presumptively entitled to a six-month reduction in his baseline term of confinement. |
Juveniles |
|
T. Stewart | Jan. 2, 2024 |
A167385
|
In re K.B.
Department of Health and Social Services failed to use "due diligence" to locate and contact the adult relatives of parents whose children were removed from parental custody. |
Juveniles |
|
M. Markman | Dec. 1, 2023 |
F085850
|
In re Jerry R.
Disagreeing with other appellate courts, a welfare department must inquire into whether a child placed into protective custody is an Indian child. |
Juveniles |
|
K. Meehan | Sep. 13, 2023 |
E079972
|
In re: Andres R.
Department of Public Social Services' duty to ask extended family members about child's Indian status applies when the child is placed into "temporary custody," not if placed into "protective custody." |
Juveniles |
|
Aug. 25, 2023 | |
A165499
|
In re A.B.
Welfare and Institutions Code Section 781 does not bar supplemental or amended petitions to seal juvenile records. |
Juveniles |
|
G. Burns | Aug. 7, 2023 |
E080284
|
In re J.P.
Welfare and Institutions Code Section 782(a)(1) allows the juvenile court to dismiss any part of a petition against a ward and does not require dismissal of the entire petition. |
Juveniles |
|
M. Raphael | Aug. 7, 2023 |
S270907
|
In re F.M.
Juvenile court failed to comply with its express declaration requirement for wobbler allegations since it did not discuss its discretion in the hearing transcript. |
Juveniles |
|
G. Liu | May 5, 2023 |
B321655
|
Modification: K.R. v. Superior Court (People)
Although Welfare & Institutions Code Section 709 establishes a maximum period of one year of remediation, the juvenile court's jurisdiction continued for a reasonable period afterward to resolve the minor's competency. |
Juveniles |
|
G. Weingart | Apr. 27, 2023 |
E079346
|
In re T.A.
Transfer of minor from juvenile court back to court of criminal jurisdiction was proper where it was not plausible that the juvenile court's decision would have been any different had it applied the newly applicable standard of proof. |
Juveniles |
|
M. Raphael | Apr. 13, 2023 |
C097055
|
In re S.S.
It was reasonably probable the juvenile court would not have ordered minor's transfer to a court of criminal jurisdiction under the current version of Welfare and Institutions Code Section 707. |
Juveniles |
|
S. McAdam | Apr. 3, 2023 |
B321655
|
K.R. v. Superior Court (People)
Although Welfare & Institutions Code Section 709 establishes a maximum period of one year of remediation, the juvenile court's jurisdiction continued for a reasonable period afterward to resolve the minor's competency. |
Juveniles |
|
G. Weingart | Apr. 3, 2023 |
B319738
|
In re E.P.
Prosecution was entitled to new fitness hearing to determine if juvenile court had jurisdiction over gang member's case based on the amended evidentiary standard. |
Juveniles |
|
A. Gilbert | Mar. 20, 2023 |
B323404
|
M.E. v. Superior Court (People)
Deferred entry of judgment was not appropriate where the Section 602 petition was not filed until after the alleged offender was 25 years old. |
Juveniles |
|
K. Yegan | Mar. 7, 2023 |
D079942
|
In re Hunter W.
Juvenile was not entitled to retroactive, ameliorative effect of amended statute because his dispositional order could no longer be directly reviewed. |
Juveniles |
|
J. McConnell | Feb. 16, 2023 |
H050341
|
In re M.G.
Welfare and Institutions Code Section 5276 required mental disorder detention evidentiary hearing to be held within two days regardless of good cause for continuance. |
Juveniles |
|
A. Grover | Dec. 23, 2022 |
G061684
|
Amber G. v. Superior Court (Orange County Social Services Agency)
Orange County Social Services Agency failed to show that minor's removal from a foster parent was in the child's best interest since it failed to address the statutory caretaker preference. |
Juveniles |
|
K. O'Leary | Dec. 20, 2022 |
S268437
|
In re D.N.
Order offering minor ward of the court option to perform community service did not violate separation of powers or due process principles because it fell within probation department's statutory role. |
Juveniles |
|
T. Cantil-Sakauye | Dec. 13, 2022 |
A164489
|
In re Jhonny S.
Person who had received honorable discharge from Division of Juvenile Justice was entitled as a matter of right to have his petition dismissed. |
Juveniles |
|
T. Jackson | Nov. 14, 2022 |
E077783
|
Modification: In re T.O.
Minor was not required to register as a sex offender because he was placed in the custody of a program that was not subject to mandatory registration. |
Juveniles |
|
C. Codrington | Nov. 3, 2022 |
E077783
|
In re T.O.
Minor was not required to register as a sex offender because he was placed in the custody of a program that was not subject to mandatory registration. |
Juveniles |
|
C. Codrington | Oct. 20, 2022 |
H049482
|
In re M.A.
Statutory prohibition on firearm possession by juveniles adjudged a ward of the juvenile court for certain misdemeanor violations also applied to juvenile who admitted to felony sexual battery. |
Juveniles |
|
C. Lie | Sep. 14, 2022 |
A163366
|
Modification: In re Jason V.
Nunc pro tunc order correcting the period of confinement imposed was permissible because the juvenile court was merely effectuating its discretionary decision and not retroactively altering it. |
Juveniles |
|
C. Mayfield | Aug. 24, 2022 |
A163366
|
In re Jason V.
Nunc pro tunc order correcting the period of confinement imposed was permissible because the juvenile court was merely effectuating its discretionary decision and not retroactively altering it. |
Juveniles |
|
C. Mayfield | Aug. 1, 2022 |