Case # | Name | Category | Court | Judge | Published |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
B300065
|
In re Samantha H.
It is not required in adoption proceedings to inquire whether a willing adoptive parent was first advised but rejected guardianship. |
Dependency |
|
M. Stratton | May 28, 2020 |
E073284
|
In re E.E.
Dependency jurisdiction does not require actual neglect; rather there must be a 'substantial risk' that the child will be neglected. |
Dependency |
|
M. Slough | May 26, 2020 |
B298750
|
Modification: In re D.B.
Father's violence, verbal abuse, racism, impulsivity, and lack of insight created substantial evidence that daughter faced substantial risk of serious emotional damage. |
Dependency |
|
J. Wiley | May 21, 2020 |
B301285
|
In re K.T.
Substantial evidence did not support finding that non-offending Father needed to take parenting course in order to protect daughter. |
Dependency |
|
F. Rothschild | May 15, 2020 |
A157256
|
In re Mary C.
Courts are not required to find children 'generally' adoptable, rather the children must 'likely' be adopted within a reasonable time. |
Dependency |
|
J. Streeter | May 7, 2020 |
B298750
|
In re D.B.
Father's violence, verbal abuse, racism, impulsivity, and lack of insight created substantial evidence that daughter faced substantial risk of serious emotional damage. |
Dependency |
|
J. Wiley | May 6, 2020 |
E073131
|
In re S.O.
No joint recommendation report was required under Welfare and Institution code Section 241.1 because the matter was three years into dual status jurisdiction. |
Dependency |
|
A. McKinster | May 6, 2020 |
F079971
|
In re M.R.
Dependency case plans must specifically identify how services will accomplish specific goals; broad language recommending future unknown services is insufficient. |
Dependency |
|
C. Poochigian | May 1, 2020 |
E072514
|
In re G.C.
Substantial evidence supported juvenile court's order removing children from parents' custody. |
Dependency |
|
D. Miller | Apr. 28, 2020 |
B296810
|
In re Aubrey T.
Evidence was insufficient to support juvenile court's finding that father abandoned daughter within meaning of Family Code Section 7822. |
Dependency |
|
L. Zelon | Apr. 28, 2020 |
B300214
|
In re S.R.
Courts may determine whether caregivers have a sexual interest in children to draw reasonable inferences on risks of substantial harm. |
Dependency |
|
H. Bendix | Apr. 27, 2020 |
B297416
|
In re J.A.
Dependency petitions based on substance abuse must also show the child faced substantial risk of harm from the substance abuse. |
Dependency |
|
L. Rubin | Apr. 22, 2020 |
E073805
|
In re A.M.
Riverside County Department of Public Social Services did not fail to comply with notice and inquiry requirements of Indian Child Welfare Act. |
Dependency |
|
C. Codrington | Apr. 6, 2020 |
E072671
|
In re C.P.
Absolute statutory bar to placement of child in grandparents' custody would be unconstitutional as to them if they establish on remand that they have parental relationship. |
Dependency |
|
M. Raphael | Mar. 30, 2020 |
D076517
|
In re D.S.
Juvenile court's finding that ICWA did not apply was proper because Agency's further inquiry and due diligence was 'proper and adequate.' |
Dependency |
|
P. Guerrero | Mar. 26, 2020 |
G058062
|
In re B.E.
Reunification bypass provision intended for parents who refuse to participate in court-ordered drug treatment program, not parents who relapse on road to recovery. |
Dependency |
|
R. Ikola | Mar. 25, 2020 |
B300468
|
In re N.D.
Under Indian Child Welfare Act, Child Welfare Services has continuous duty to investigate if child is or may be Indian child. |
Dependency |
|
A. Garcia | Mar. 17, 2020 |
B287406
|
In re Justin O.
Juvenile court abused its discretion in denying grandmother's requests for de facto parent status because there were no factual findings in support of denial. |
Dependency |
|
H. Bendix | Mar. 4, 2020 |
B295780
|
In re D.P.
Incorporating Dependency Court Order 415 into a removal order without stating facts that support removal does not comply with Welfare and Institutions Code Section 361(e). |
Dependency |
|
A. Egerton | Feb. 10, 2020 |
A156489
|
In re William M.W.
Social Services Agency can meet its discovery obligations under California Rule of Court 5.546 by making all discoverable materials available for inspection and copying. |
Dependency |
|
G. Sanchez | Dec. 19, 2019 |
B298289
|
In re Adam H.
Juvenile court erroneously failed to consider Welfare and Institutions Code Section 361.2(a) in evaluating whether minor should be placed with his father. |
Dependency |
|
L. Rubin | Dec. 9, 2019 |
C088052
|
In re J.R.
Juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in terminating dependency jurisdiction because ample evidence showed, among other things, that minor's best interests were considered most important and discussed throughout proceedings. |
Dependency |
|
H. Hull | Nov. 26, 2019 |
E072082
|
In re K.T.
A denial of a petition to regain child custody under Welfare and Institutions Code Section 388 grants relatives standing to appeal a child removal order issued under Section 387. |
Dependency |
|
M. Ramirez | Nov. 14, 2019 |
D075120
|
In re L.M.
Juvenile court did not err in considering minor's proposed placement, rather than solely removal, in applying the best interest standard, and juvenile court's finding was supported by substantial evidence. |
Dependency |
|
W. Dato | Sep. 16, 2019 |
A155254
|
Modification: In re B.D.
Family Services Bureau's Welfare and Institutions Code Section 366.26 report violated statutory obligations by omitting evidence material to adoptability and was so inadequate that minor's due process rights were denied. |
Dependency |
|
J. Streeter | Jun. 28, 2019 |
A155254
|
In re B.D.
Family Services Bureau's Welfare and Institutions Code Section 366.26 report violated statutory obligations by omitting evidence material to adoptability and was so inadequate that minor's due process rights were denied. |
Dependency |
|
J. Streeter | May 29, 2019 |
A153925
|
In re Caden C.
No reasonable court could have concluded that a compelling justification had been made for forgoing adoption under beneficial relationship exception; thus, judgment was reversed. |
Dependency |
|
G. Sanchez | Apr. 11, 2019 |
A152993
|
In re C.W.
Finding a child is at risk in a parent's custody and yet ordering the child placed with that parent is abuse of discretion, thwarts purpose of dependency juvenile courts. |
Dependency |
|
T. Stewart | Apr. 1, 2019 |
D074022
|
In re Charlotte C.
Minor's counsel entitled to receive copy of her client's case file, including any Resource Family Approval Program-related information, upon request pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code Section 317(f). |
Dependency |
|
P. Benke | Mar. 27, 2019 |
C086808
|
In re D.D.
Substantial evidence supported juvenile court's findings that the previous disposition of returning the children to mother's custody had not been effective in protecting the children under Welfare and Institutions Code Section 387. |
Dependency |
|
H. Hull | Mar. 7, 2019 |