Case # | Name | Category | Court | Judge | Published |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
D085053
|
In re A.T.
Child's removal from her father's physical custody was affirmed when substantial evidence supported juvenile court's finding that providing father with physical custody would be detrimental to child. |
Dependency |
|
J. Kelety | Apr. 16, 2025 |
F088486
|
In re H.M.
Social service's and juvenile court's duty of further inquiry was met when they continually followed through with all prospects to determine minor's potential Native American ancestry. |
Dependency, Native American Affairs |
|
D. Franson | Mar. 26, 2025 |
A170656
|
In re L.W.
Juvenile court erred in exercising dependency jurisdiction when substantial evidence supported that despite mother's past drug issues, mother's mental illness was not currently placing child at substantial risk. |
Dependency |
|
G. Burns | Mar. 21, 2025 |
B332110
|
In re J.F.
A conditional affirmance of a legal guardianship order sufficiently preserved parental rights and allowed father to remain a party to the proceeding, making a conditional reversal unnecessary. |
Dependency, Native American Affairs |
|
D. Kim | Mar. 10, 2025 |
E084220
|
In re J.B.
De facto parent lacked standing to appeal order granting additional reunification services to minor's biological parents because she was not a party aggrieved by the order she sought to appeal. |
Dependency |
|
D. Miller | Mar. 3, 2025 |
B339093
|
County of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (Hernandez)
County had no duty to notify relative requesting preferential consideration for minor's placement in protective custody prior that a removal order had been issued. |
Dependency |
|
A. Collins | Dec. 9, 2024 |
B329240
|
In re T.R.
A juvenile court that selected legal guardianship as the permanent plan for a child and terminated dependency jurisdiction retained authority to ensure compliance with the Indian Child Welfare Act. |
Dependency |
|
G. Martinez | Dec. 9, 2024 |
B337033
|
In re Juan A.
Juvenile court should have continued teenage dependent's permanent placement service hearing so that dependent could be present at the hearing. |
Dependency |
|
H. Bendix | Nov. 26, 2024 |
A169493
|
In re H.B.
Agency's failure to make reasonable efforts to prevent the need for removal of children from father's custody warranted reversal of juvenile court's order. |
Dependency |
|
J. Richman | Oct. 30, 2024 |
S275578
|
Modification: In re Dezi C.
Failure to conduct an adequate inquiry under the Indian Child Welfare Act requires conditional reversal to comply with the statute's inquiry provisions. |
Dependency |
|
Sep. 16, 2024 | |
B332002
|
In re Gilberto G.
Evidence of single instance of alcohol abuse while caring for children did not support finding mother posed risk of danger to her children at the time of the jurisdiction hearing. |
Dependency |
|
J. Segal | Sep. 16, 2024 |
B332310
|
In re V.S.
Juvenile court abused its discretion in choosing, sua sponte, guardianship over adoption. |
Dependency |
|
A. Collins | Sep. 11, 2024 |
B332985
|
Dora V. v. Superior Court (Los Angeles County Dept. of Children and Family Services)
Legal guardian appointed by the juvenile court was not entitled to a presumption of reunification services with minor. |
Dependency |
|
G. Martinez | Sep. 5, 2024 |
S275578
|
In re Dezi C.
Failure to conduct an adequate inquiry under the Indian Child Welfare Act requires conditional reversal to comply with the statute's inquiry provisions. |
Dependency |
|
K. Evans | Aug. 20, 2024 |
S276649
|
In re Kenneth D.
Absent exceptional circumstances, a reviewing court may not consider postjudgment evidence to conclude an inadequate Indian Child Welfare Act inquiry was harmless. |
Dependency |
|
C. Corrigan | Aug. 20, 2024 |
B326007
|
In re N.J.
Concluding relative placement preference did not apply was error where social services failed to exercise due diligence in complying with statutory duty to assess adult relative for possible placement. |
Dependency |
|
A. Collins | Aug. 13, 2024 |
E082653
|
In re Zoe H.
Jurisdictional findings are not prima facie evidence for removal other than a finding of severe physical abuse of children under five. |
Dependency |
|
F. Menetrez | Aug. 12, 2024 |
E082812
|
In re S.R.
Juvenile court improperly inferred that mother's failure to protect her daughter from being sexually abused meant that her son was at substantial risk of physical harm. |
Dependency |
|
F. Menetrez | Aug. 8, 2024 |
E082619
|
In re B.H.
Dependency jurisdiction over minor children was proper where Mother acknowledged that the children should not drive with Father due to concern about his drinking and driving, but still allowed him to transport the children the next day. |
Dependency |
|
M. Raphael | Jul. 8, 2024 |
B327625
|
In re B.D.
Dependency petition should not have been granted where Department of Family Services failed to demonstrate that mother who tested positive for opiates failed to provide regular care for her children. |
Dependency |
|
R. Adams | Jul. 2, 2024 |
A168850
|
In re A.F.
Juvenile court had jurisdiction over children who could suffer potential abuse from alleged father. |
Dependency |
|
V. Rodriguez | Jun. 11, 2024 |
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 |