Case # | Name | Category | Court | Judge | Published |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
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 |
A162151
|
Modification: In re Ernesto L.
When a minor is committed to the Division of Juvenile Justice, a juvenile court must apply the minor's precommitment credits against the actual maximum custodial term imposed, not the theoretical maximum exposure term. |
Juveniles |
|
J. Humes | Jul. 29, 2022 |
D079759
|
In re N.L.
Because minors charged with felony offenses committed at 14 years or older are no longer ineligible for informal supervision, the appropriate remedy was conditional reversal with instructions. |
Juveniles |
|
M. Buchanan | Jul. 25, 2022 |
A162151
|
In re Ernesto L.
When a minor is committed to the Division of Juvenile Justice, a juvenile court must apply the minor's precommitment credits against the actual maximum custodial term imposed, not the theoretical maximum exposure term. |
Juveniles |
|
J. Humes | Jul. 13, 2022 |
B312789
|
In re M.B.
Welfare departments cannot remedy a defective Indian Child Welfare Act investigation by conducting further interviews while the termination order is being reviewed on appeal. |
Juveniles |
|
D. Perluss | Jun. 30, 2022 |
F083561
|
Therolf v. Superior Court (Madera County Dept. of Social Services/Child Welfare Services)
Juvenile court made multiple prejudicial errors when it denied journalist's request for deceased child's records without following certain procedures. |
Juveniles |
|
K. Meehan | Jun. 29, 2022 |
B313171
|
In re Q.M.
Juvenile court did not err in finding that the Indian Child Welfare Act did not apply where parents failed to cooperate with the investigation. |
Juveniles |
|
L. Edmon | Jun. 20, 2022 |
H049676
|
In re A.B.
Father's right to due process was not abridged when the juvenile court rejected his request for a contested post-permanency review hearing, concluding that the evidence submitted was inadequate. |
Juveniles |
|
P. Bamattre-Manoukian | Jun. 16, 2022 |
B315698
|
In re Allison B.
Post-judgment evidence is acceptable and may be reviewed when considering a motion to dismiss a juvenile dependence appeal. |
Juveniles |
|
F. Rothschild | Jun. 1, 2022 |
G060663
|
In re Z.O.
In a dependency case, the juvenile court's omission of any findings on a mother's competency violated her due process right to understand the reasons for the guardian ad litem appointment. |
Juveniles |
|
M. Sanchez | May 26, 2022 |
C094587
|
In re M.E.
Welfare Department and juvenile court failed in their duty to further investigate children's possible Native ancestry under the Indian Child Welfare Act when reports were bereft of continued inquiry. |
Juveniles |
|
L. Earl | May 26, 2022 |
D079473
|
In re M.V.
Substantial evidence did not support the finding that there would be a substantial danger to the well-being of the children if returned to their mother's custody, if mother lived and parented separately from father. |
Juveniles |
|
T. Do | May 18, 2022 |
19-55895
|
A.C. v. Cortez
There is no per se constitutional privacy right in juvenile records, instead, courts must balance the governmental need to infringe with the individual's privacy interest. |
Juveniles |
|
R. Seeborg | May 16, 2022 |
B312476
|
In re A.R.
Juvenile court had authority to hold restitution hearing five years after sentencing hearing under Penal Code Section 730.6, even though the loss amounts were ascertainable during the sentencing hearing. |
Juveniles |
|
M. Stratton | May 4, 2022 |
S265910
|
In re Christopher L.
Proceeding with a jurisdiction and disposition hearing without appointing counsel for child's parent nor for providing for his presence at the hearing was not the "miscarriage of justice" required to reverse the decision as a structural error. |
Juveniles |
|
G. Liu | Apr. 26, 2022 |
B313698
|
Modification: In re H.N.
Because possession of child pornography includes alternative sentencing language, it is a wobbler offense and requires juvenile courts to make a declaration of the offense as either a felony or misdemeanor. |
Juveniles |
|
A. Gilbert | Apr. 21, 2022 |
H049207
|
In re I.F.
Under the Indian Child Welfare Act, the duty to further inquire is established once there is a suggestion of possible tribal membership. |
Juveniles |
|
A. Grover | Apr. 8, 2022 |
G060677
|
In re A.R.
Social Service Agency's failure to conduct an initial inquiry into child's Native American heritage in child custody proceeding constitutes a miscarriage of justice regardless of parent's efforts to appeal. |
Juveniles |
|
T. Goethals | Apr. 8, 2022 |
C093305
|
In re A.J.
Juvenile courts are not to hold separate jurisdictional or dispositional hearings for the mother and father. |
Juveniles |
|
H. Hull | Apr. 6, 2022 |
B312685
|
In re J.C.
Substantial evidence did not support juvenile court's finding that Indian Child Welfare Act did not apply because it failed to ensure that the Department of Children and Family Services fulfilled its duty of inquiry. |
Juveniles |
|
J. Segal | Apr. 6, 2022 |
B313020
|
Modification: In re J.Y.
The juvenile court abused its discretion by setting a hearing to place minor with relatives after the reunification period ended because there was no evidence that removal was necessary or in the child's best interest. |
Juveniles |
|
E. Grimes | Apr. 1, 2022 |