Skip to content
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 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 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: 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 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 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 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 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: 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