Dependency (300)

Name: In re Miguel J.
Case #: B339932
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 8
Opinion Date: 08/03/2026

Domestic violence, when committed in the presence of the minor, is a sufficient basis for jurisdiction pursuant to section 300, subdivision (a). Minor was removed from Father and released to Mother following a domestic violence incident where Father accidentally struck Minor while Mother was holding him in her arms. Father appealed and the reviewing court affirmed. Section 300, subdivision (a) requires that a parent’s harmful act be “nonaccidental.” Here, Father intentionally struck at Mother, but accidentally hit Minor. The intentional act of domestic violence, in the presence of Minor, is sufficient for jurisdiction pursuant to section 300, subdivision (a).
Justice…

View Full Summary
Name: In re W.A.
Case #: C04510
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 3 DCA
Opinion Date: 08/19/2026

Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) inquiry issue is cognizable on appeal where juvenile court retains jurisdiction over the child but made no ICWA findings at the hearing from which Mother appeals. Minor was removed from her parents. When the recommendation for Minor’s permanent plan changed from guardianship to adoption, Mother filed a section 388 petition requesting reinstatement of services. The juvenile court summarily denied the petition. Mother appealed and the reviewing court affirmed. The published portion of the appeal addresses ICWA applicability in these circumstances. The juvenile court had jurisdiction over Minor when it heard Mother’s 388 petition. Despite there…

View Full Summary
Name: In re P.C.
Case #: E087969
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 2
Opinion Date: 08/18/2026

A 388 petition filed in pro per by a parent who is represented by counsel need not be considered by the juvenile court. Shortly before a section 366.26 hearing, Mother filed a pro per section 388 petition requesting reunification services and liberalized visitation. The juvenile court denied the petition summarily and proceeded to terminate parental rights. Mother appealed and the reviewing court affirmed. Generally, a litigant represented by counsel has access to the court through counsel and thus has no right also to submit pro per filings. There are exceptions for pro per motions regarding representation (People v. Marsden (1970)…

View Full Summary
Name: In re Landon M.
Case #: B349454
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 7
Opinion Date: 07/02/2026

Mother’s appeal of jurisdiction findings based on “general neglect” became moot once jurisdiction was terminated, granting her full legal and physical custody. The juvenile court found jurisdiction over Minors when Father brandished a weapon at a cashier while Mother and Minors were in the store and took police on a high-speed chase with one of the minors in the backseat. It was found that Mother failed to protect Minors by allowing Father access to Minors when she knew he possessed guns. Mother appealed. During the pendency of the appeal the court terminated its jurisdiction and granted Mother full legal and…

View Full Summary
Name: In re X.A.
Case #: B350895
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 07/27/2026

Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) inquiry was sufficient where the Agency contacted relatives but they refused to cooperate. The case was initially remanded for additional ICWA inquiry following Mother’s appeal of the termination of her parental rights. After remand, the juvenile court found ICWA did not apply and reinstated the termination. Mother appealed and the reviewing court affirmed. The Agency contacted both the maternal grandmother and maternal great grandmother to inquire regarding ICWA ancestry. Both were uncooperative. The Agency was not required to try and change their minds. Thus, the Agency took reasonable steps to determine if the minors were…

View Full Summary
Name: Marriage of G.E. and I.D.
Case #: D085597
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 07/20/2026

The court erred when it dismissed a Domestic Violence Restraining Order (DVRO) petition based on docket management concerns. G.E. requested a DVRO against I.D. based on physical and emotional abuse of her and their child. She estimated a two-day trial. G.E. presented credible evidence of abuse during her testimony. When the hearing was not completed by the end of the second day, the court asked I.D. not to violate the Domestic Violence Protection Act (DVPA), found there was not a reasonable probability of future violence, and dismissed G.E.’s petition. G.E. appealed and the reviewing court reversed. While a court has…

View Full Summary
Name: In re Violet S.
Case #: E087240
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 2
Opinion Date: 05/27/2026

The juvenile court erred when it terminated jurisdiction over a nonminor with cerebral palsy who resided permanently in a subacute care center. The nonminor Violet has cerebral palsy, is nonambulatory, nonverbal, and hearing impaired and requires 24-hour medical care necessitating lifelong subacute care. After multiple six-month reviews at which Violet was continued as a nonminor dependent, the Agency changed its recommendation based on the assertion that she could not participate in a transitional independent living plan because she would require lifelong care. The juvenile court terminated jurisdiction finding that Violet remained eligible but continuing jurisdiction was not in her best…

View Full Summary
Name: R.M. v. A.G.
Case #: B342515; B345395
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 05/27/2026

The court erred by failing to consider indirect contact when considering the issuance of a Domestic Violence Restraining Order (DVRO). Former boyfriend and girlfriend R.M. and A.G. filed for mutual DVROs. A.G. presented evidence that R.M. had called her mother and disparaged A.G. Additionally, R.M. had posted intimate photos of her as his profile picture on social media and changed his username to taunting and sexually demeaning phrases. The court granted R.M.’s request for a DVRO, but denied A.G.’s because R.M. had not contacted A.G. since the end of the relationship. A.G. appealed and the reviewing court reversed. Family Code…

View Full Summary
Name: In re N.J.
Case #: E086829
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 2
Opinion Date: 06/25/2026

A court makes an implicit presumed father finding when it treats a father as a presumed father. Minor was removed from Mother due to substance abuse. Father was named on Minor’s birth certificate and present at her birth but had not lived in the family home for over a year. Father appealed the jurisdictional and dispositional findings. On remand for other issues, the reviewing court ordered that the juvenile court make explicit its presumed father finding. The doctrine of implied findings presumes that the juvenile court made all implied findings to support its judgment. Here, the jurisdiction and disposition orders…

View Full Summary
Name: In re A.T.
Case #: E086411
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 2
Opinion Date: 06/05/2026

Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (e) is applicable only where a child is under the age of five at the time of the jurisdiction hearing. Minor was detained from Guardian based on physical abuse and mistreatment that occurred when he was four years old. A petition was filed which included an allegation under section 300(e) which pertains to abuse of children under five years old. By the time of the jurisdiction hearing, Minor had turned five. The juvenile court found true the section 300, subdivision (e) allegations, among other allegations. Guardian appealed and the reviewing court reversed. For…

View Full Summary