Skip to content
Name: In re S.G.
Case #: B330106
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 3
Opinion Date: 03/28/2024

Mother’s due process rights were not violated where the juvenile court failed to take into account her age and capacity for change at the section 366.26 hearing. Minor was removed from Mother, who was a dependent child herself when the proceedings were initiated. After 18 months of services, a section 366.26 hearing was set. Mother filed a section 388 petition asking the court to reinstate reunification services as she had been engaging consistently in services. The juvenile court denied the petition and proceeded to terminate Mother’s parental rights. Mother appealed and the reviewing court affirmed. At various points before a…

View Full Summary
Name: F.K. v. Superior Court (2024) 100 Cal.App.5th 928
Case #: B333788
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 6
Opinion Date: 03/18/2024

The juvenile court has discretion at the six-month review hearing to continue reunification services even if it finds there is not a substantial probability the child will be returned to the parent. Minor was removed from Mother due to alcohol abuse and domestic violence. Following removal, Mother engaged in alcohol treatment, therapy, and domestic violence treatment, although Mother continued to experience denial and relapse. At the six-month review hearing the juvenile court said that it could not grant more services unless Mother showed she had substantially complied with her case plan. The juvenile court terminated reunification services and set a…

View Full Summary
Name: In re Ca.M. (2024) 100 Cal.App.5th 938
Case #: B326320
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 5
Opinion Date: 03/18/2024

When there is sufficient evidence to support one basis for a jurisdiction finding against a parent, any challenge to an additional basis for jurisdiction is moot. Minors were removed from their parents due to Father’s alcohol abuse and domestic violence. At the jurisdiction hearing, the juvenile court found true allegations against Mother that she failed to protect Minors from Father, allowed Minors to be in a vehicle while Father drove drunk, and that both parents failed to safely store a firearm in the home. On appeal, Mother challenged the sufficiency of evidence regarding the domestic violence allegations. The reviewing court…

View Full Summary
Name: In re Samantha F. (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 1062
Case #: E080888
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 2
Opinion Date: 02/22/2024

The Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) section 224.2, subdivision (b) initial inquiry requirements apply when a minor is brought into custody pursuant to a warrant (§ 340). Samantha was removed pursuant to a protective custody warrant. Father appealed the termination of his parental rights, raising the issue of the failure to comply with the initial inquiry requirements of ICWA. The Fourth Appellate District, Division Two reversed, following the reasoning of In re Delila D. (2023) 93 Cal.App.5th 953, that section 224.2, subdivision (b) is applicable regardless of whether the minor was initially removed pursuant to a warrant. All children awaiting a detention hearing,…

View Full Summary
Name: In re H.D. (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 814
Case #: D082615
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 02/14/2024

In the context of Welfare and Institutions Code section 213.5, probation officers and social workers are the same. Minor was removed due to Mother’s substance abuse. Following the termination of parental rights, Minor requested a restraining order protecting Minor from Mother. The juvenile court granted the restraining order and Mother appealed. The reviewing court affirmed, rejecting a literal interpretation of section 213.5, because in the context of section 213.5, probation officers are the same as social workers. While the reviewing court found that the issue was forfeited for the failure to raise it below, it chose to exercise its discretion…

View Full Summary
Name: In re Lilianna C. (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 638
Case #: B324755
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 2
Opinion Date: 02/08/2024

Welfare and Institutions Code section 213.5 does not limit a juvenile court’s power to issue a restraining order to situations in which the petition was filed by a probation officer. Minor was removed from Mother and placed with a maternal aunt (Maunt). Mother called Maunt and left a threatening voicemail. The juvenile court issued a restraining order protecting Minor, Maunt, and other household members from Mother. Mother appealed the dispositional orders and the reviewing court affirmed. Mother challenged the issuance of the restraining order based on a literal reading of Welfare and Institutions Code section 213.5, which limits the juvenile court’s…

View Full Summary
Name: In re F.V. (2024) 100 Cal.App.5th 219
Case #: B329192
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 02/08/2024
Subsequent History: Ordered published 4/5/2024

There was insufficient evidence to support the jurisdiction findings where there was no evidence of future risk to the minor at the time of the jurisdiction hearing. Minor traveled to the United States border from Honduras with Father. After an unsuccessful attempt to cross the border, Minor entered the United States unaccompanied and was placed with a maternal uncle. Minor was removed from the maternal uncle after she disclosed to Mother, who was still living in Honduras, that he was sexually abusing her. Mother then contacted other relatives in California who reported the abuse to the proper authorities. In the…

View Full Summary
Name: In re P.L. (2024) 100 Cal.App.5th 406
Case #: D082723, D082853
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 02/08/2024
Subsequent History: Ordered published 4/7/2024

The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the minors to refuse visitation where Father never requested a change to the visitation orders. The minors were removed due to physical abuse by Father and placed with Mother. Although the court ordered supervised visitation with Father, neither minor wished to visit, and the court ordered that their wishes should be considered. Father did not object to the visitation orders. Father appealed from the jurisdiction and disposition orders and the reviewing court affirmed. Father argued that allowing the minors to refuse visitation was an improper delegation of power. The reviewing…

View Full Summary
Name: In re A.K. (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 252
Case #: C097776
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 3 DCA
Opinion Date: 01/18/2024
Subsequent History: Ordered published 1/30/2024

Juvenile court prejudicially erred in failing to promptly inquire about parentage and in denying biological father’s 388 petitions where biological father was not properly noticed of the proceedings. Minor was removed due to Mother’s substance abuse during her pregnancy. Mother appeared at the detention hearing with an alleged father who requested DNA testing and was later determined not to be Minor’s biological father. Mother then shared that the biological father might be C.B., who took a paternity test and was determined to be Minor’s biological father. Mother was bypassed at the dispositional hearing and a section 366.26 hearing was set.…

View Full Summary
Name: L.C. v. Superior Court (2024) 98 Cal.App.5th 1021
Case #: B331041
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 7
Opinion Date: 01/16/2024

Substantial evidence did not support the juvenile court’s finding that it would be detrimental to return Minor to Mother based on Mother’s decision to remain in Mexico throughout the dependency case. The minor was removed from Mother when Mother was arrested for transporting Fentanyl. Father was never located. Mother returned to Mexico on the advice of her attorney and remained there throughout the case. Mother completed a drug program in Mexico and maintained a relationship with Minor through frequent video calls. Maternal grandparents, who also lived in Mexico, were approved by an international ICPC. The juvenile court was disapproving that…

View Full Summary
Name: In re P.H., Jr. (2024) 98 Cal.App.5th 992
Case #: B321592
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 5
Opinion Date: 01/12/2024

The juvenile court did not err in finding that the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) did not apply, despite imperfect notice, because no formal notice was required. At the detention hearing, Father shared possible heritage with Yucca and Navajo tribes and Mother claimed possible heritage with Yuki and Apache tribes. The Agency attempted to contact the relatives that parents said may have more information and mailed ICWA-030 notices to several Apache and Navajo tribes. Father appealed following the disposition hearing, arguing that the ICWA findings were erroneous because the information on the ICWA-030 forms was incomplete, the form was not…

View Full Summary
Name: In re R.M. (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 240
Case #: B327716
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 3
Opinion Date: 01/05/2024
Subsequent History: Ordered published 1/30/2024

There was insufficient evidence to support jurisdiction findings where Agency presented no evidence that parents could not make appropriate custody arrangements following their arrest. The minor was removed when parents were arrested on suspicion of murder. Parents gave the Agency information about relatives who could care for the minor. Nonetheless, the juvenile court sustained section 300, subdivisions (b) and (g) allegations against the parents due to their failure to supervise and unavailability because of their arrest. Mother appealed and the reviewing court reversed. Neither incarceration alone nor the failure to make an advanced plan for a child’s ongoing care and…

View Full Summary
Name: In re L.B. (2023) 98 Cal.App.5th 512
Case #: A167363
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 4
Opinion Date: 12/28/2023

The Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) section 224.2, subdivision (b) initial inquiry requirements apply when a minor is brought into custody pursuant to a warrant. L.B. was removed pursuant to a protective custody warrant. Mother appealed the termination of her parental rights, raising the failure to comply with the initial inquiry requirements of ICWA. The First Appellate District, Division Four reversed, following the reasoning of In re Delila D. (2023) 93 Cal.App.5th 953, that section 224.2, subdivision (b) is applicable regardless of whether the minor was initially removed pursuant to a warrant. Children removed from homes through a protective custody…

View Full Summary
Name: In re N.R. (2023) 15 Cal.5th 520
Case #: S274943
Court: CA Supreme Court
Opinion Date: 12/14/2023

Substance abuse, which is defined as the excessive use of drugs or alcohol, must render a parent unable to provide regular care for a child and place that child at substantial risk of harm in order to support jurisdiction. N.R.’s parents did not live together. When safety concerns arose at Mother’s residence, the Agency assessed Father’s home. Father took a drug test, which came back positive for cocaine, and Father admitted to using cocaine the prior weekend during a birthday celebration. He said that he used every couple of weeks and never when N.R. was in his care. N.R. was…

View Full Summary
Name: In re L.B. (2023) 98 Cal.App.5th 827
Case #: F086109
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 5 DCA
Opinion Date: 12/13/2023
Subsequent History: Ordered published 1/9/2024

Active resistance to substance abuse treatment, for purpose of bypass pursuant to section 361.5, subdivision (b)(13), includes the prompt resumption of substance abuse shortly after successful reunification. Parents had a long history of interaction with the Department, including dependency actions in 2011, 2016, and 2020. In 2022, the minors were again removed due to parents’ domestic violence and substance abuse. Both parents began engaging promptly with services. At the disposition hearing, reunification services were ordered for parents, over minors’ counsel’s objection. The juvenile court noted that it did not believe it could bypass the parents under section 361.5, subdivision (b)(13)…

View Full Summary
Name: In re K.B. (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 689
Case #: A167385
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 2
Opinion Date: 11/03/2023
Subsequent History: Ordered published 11/30/2023

There was insufficient evidence to support dispositional findings that the Agency exercised due diligence to identify, locate, and contact relatives for placement. Minors were removed due to the parents’ substance abuse issues. Following removal, the Agency contacted both maternal and paternal grandmothers to inquire about Indian heritage. There was no information in the record that either of these relatives were asked about being available as a placement or other interest in participating in the case. The parents also identified a maternal aunt who was not contacted by the Agency. Minors were placed in a non-relative foster home and the court…

View Full Summary
Name: In re Kayla W. (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 99
Case #: B326119
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 3
Opinion Date: 10/25/2023
Subsequent History: Ordered published 11/14/2023

Mother’s failure to object to California’s exercise of jurisdiction waived the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) issue. Minor was removed from Mother during a trip to California. Mother was born in California but had been living in Nevada for the prior 18 months with the father of Minor’s younger siblings. At the detention hearing, the juvenile court reported that it had conferred with Nevada authorities and that court would not assert jurisdiction if Minor was placed with maternal grandfather. At the jurisdiction hearing, which the Nevada court attended telephonically, the Nevada court relinquished jurisdiction after being assured…

View Full Summary
Name: In re R.Q. (2023) 96 Cal.App.5th 462
Case #: E080765
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 2
Opinion Date: 10/16/2023

The juvenile court properly exercised its broad discretion to make orders in the best interest of the minor when it placed minor with biological father over presumed father’s objection. The minor was removed from presumed father and stepmother due to physical abuse. Mother had substance abuse and mental health issues. The presumed father was not the minor’s biological father. C.H., minor’s biological father, had visited with the minor five to ten times, including overnight visits, though minor was not aware he was her biological father. Following removal, C.H. began visiting with minor by weekly video chats and in person when…

View Full Summary
Name: In re C.L. (2023) 96 Cal.App.5th 377
Case #: C097911
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 3 DCA
Opinion Date: 10/13/2023

The Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) section 224.2, subdivision (b) initial inquiry requirements apply when a minor is brought into custody pursuant to a warrant (section 340). The minor was removed from the parents based on medical neglect. At the detention hearing, Father claimed Cherokee ancestry. Father appealed the termination of his parental rights, raising the issue of the failure to comply with the ICWA. The Third Appellate District reversed the parental rights termination, following the reasoning of In re Delila D. (2023) 93 Cal.App.5th 953. Section 224.2, subdivision (b) is applicable regardless of whether the minor was initially removed…

View Full Summary
Name: In re Gael C. (2023) 96 Cal.App.5th 220
Case #: B317838
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 7
Opinion Date: 10/09/2023

Father's appeal of juvenile court's jurisdiction and disposition orders became moot when he failed to appeal the order terminating jurisdiction. The minors were removed from the parents due to domestic violence. The juvenile court found jurisdiction and removed the minors from Father's care, placing them in the custody of Mother. Father appealed this decision. About nine months later, the juvenile court terminated its jurisdiction and issued custody orders. Father did not appeal this order. Division Seven of the Second Appellate District dismissed the appeal, finding that the case was moot based on its own precedent in In re Rashad D.

View Full Summary
Name: Parris J. v. Christopher U. (2023) 96 Cal.App.5th 108
Case #: B313470; B316247; B317613
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 4
Opinion Date: 10/04/2023

Substantial evidence supported the issuance of a Domestic Violence Restraining Order (DVRO) because the Domestic Violence Prevention Act (DVPA) encompasses behavior which amounts to “coercive control.” Three months after Parris and Christopher were married, Parris moved her things out of their house after Christopher threatened to dispose of her belongings following an argument. After Parris moved, Christopher arrived uninvited to Parris’s apartment and would not allow Parris to leave until her friends arrived and escorted her out. Christopher sent Parris many lewd and demeaning emails and texts until Parris told him to stop contacting her. The trial court granted Parris a…

View Full Summary
Name: Jan F. v. Natalie F. (2023) 96 Cal.App.5th 583
Case #: B322439
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 09/20/2023

Family court’s denial of domestic violence restraining order (DVRO) was error as Father had no First Amendment right to harass Mother. Natalie F. and Jan F. are the parents of two young children. Natalie sought a DVRO, claiming that Jan had made false police reports to conduct welfare checks on the minors on seven occasions and had been sending her and her attorney harassing messages. The family court denied the request, noting that it would not restrain Jan from contacting the police as he might have sincere concerns about the children’s welfare and because he had a First Amendment right…

View Full Summary
Name: In re Jerry R. (2023) 95 Cal.App.5th 388
Case #: F085850
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 5 DCA
Opinion Date: 09/11/2023

The Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) section 224.2, subdivision (b) initial inquiry requirements apply when a minor is brought into custody pursuant to a warrant (section 340). Parents appealed the termination of their parental rights, raising the issue of the failure to comply with the initial inquiry requirements of ICWA. The Fifth District reversed, following the reasoning of In re Delila D. (2023) 93 Cal.App.5th 953, that section 224.2, subdivision (b) is applicable regardless of whether the minor was initially removed pursuant to a warrant or not. There is no practical difference between children taken by warrant and those taken…

View Full Summary
Name: In re V.C. (2023) 95 Cal.App.5th 251
Case #: A166527
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 2
Opinion Date: 09/06/2023

The Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) section 224.2, subdivision (b) initial inquiry requirements apply when a minor is brought into custody pursuant to a warrant (section 340). Minors were removed from parents and parental rights were terminated in 2021. The termination was reversed on appeal and a new section 366.26 hearing was held in 2022 at which parental rights were again terminated. Parents appealed, raising the issue of the failure to comply with the initial inquiry requirements of ICWA. The reviewing court reversed, following the reasoning of In re Delila D. (2023) 93 Cal.App.5th 953, that section 224.2, subdivision (b)…

View Full Summary
Name: In re Andres R. (2023) 94 Cal.App.5th 828
Case #: E079972
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 2
Opinion Date: 08/23/2023

The Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) section 224.2, subdivision (b) initial inquiry requirements do not apply when a minor is brought into custody pursuant to a warrant (section 340). The minor was removed from his parents pursuant to a detention warrant. Mother denied Indian ancestry and Father claimed Cherokee ancestry. The Cherokee Nation said that the minor was not eligible to be enrolled in the tribe. Father appealed the jurisdictional and dispositional findings that adjudged the minor as a dependent of the court and removed minor from his custody, raising an ICWA initial inquiry failure. The appellate court affirmed. Division…

View Full Summary
Name: In re R.F.
Case #: E079941
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 2
Opinion Date: 08/21/2023

Caretaker was entitled to a hearing on removal of minors in her care where the record showed a failure to provide caretaker with proper notice of removal. The minors were removed from their parents and placed with paternal grandparents. At the section 366.26 hearing, parental rights were terminated and adoption was chosen as the minors’ permanent plan. At the .26 hearing, minors’ counsel raised concerns about paternal grandfather’s alcohol use and a subsequent drug test found methamphetamine. The minors were removed pursuant to an emergency removal. The proof of notice filed with the court said that paternal grandmother (PGMA) was…

View Full Summary
Name: In re N.F. (2023) 95 Cal.App.5th 170
Case #: B318674
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 3
Opinion Date: 08/10/2023
Subsequent History: Ordered published 9/5/2023

The Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) is not implicated at a post-permanency hearing which will not result in foster-care placement, termination of parental rights, preadoptive placement, or adoptive placement. The minor was removed from Mother in 2018. In 2021, a paternal uncle was appointed as minor’s legal guardian and dependency jurisdiction was terminated with Kin-GAP funding in place. Mother did not appeal this order. In 2022, Mother brought a 388 petition asking that her reunification services be reinstated as she had recently been released from incarceration. The 388 petition was denied and the court ordered that the dependency case remain…

View Full Summary
Name: Hatley v. Southard
Case #: E080000
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 2
Opinion Date: 08/01/2023
Subsequent History: Ordered published 8/16/2023

The trial court erred in denying a request for Domestic Violence Restraining Order (DVRO) because the Domestic Violence Prevention Act (DVPA) includes behavior which amounts to “coercive control.” Hatley sought a DVRO protecting herself from Southard, her estranged husband. Hatley alleged that Southard had used suicide threats to manipulate her, used access to family finances and necessities, such as a telephone, as methods of control, isolated her by forcing her to depend on him for transportation, and sent threatening text messages. The trial court judge denied the DVRO finding that Hatley’s allegations did not fall within the DVPA as they…

View Full Summary
Name: In re Jayden M.
Case #: B321967
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 2
Opinion Date: 07/27/2023

When considering a parent’s reasonable effort to address a problem from a previous dependency case, the juvenile court should look at the entire time period between when the earliest sibling was removed from the parent’s custody and the current dispositional hearing. The minor was removed from Mother in 2021 due to her drug use during pregnancy. The juvenile court had previously found jurisdiction over five of Minor’s six siblings. Minor’s oldest sibling was removed from Mother in 2001, when he was born testing positive for drugs. Two additional siblings were born positive for drugs in 2003 and in 2020. Mother…

View Full Summary
Name: In re Delila D.
Case #: E080389
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 2
Opinion Date: 07/21/2023

The Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) section 224.2, subdivision (b) initial inquiry requirements apply when a minor is brought into custody pursuant to a warrant. The minor was removed from her parents pursuant to a detention warrant. The parents denied Indian ancestry. Mother appealed the subsequent termination of her parental rights, raising an ICWA initial inquiry failure, and the reviewing court conditionally reversed. Division Two of the Fourth Appellate District declined to follow its own precedent in In re Robert F. (2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 492 and In re Ja.O. (2023) 91 Cal.App.5th 672, because those decisions were themselves a departure…

View Full Summary