Skip to content
Name: In re Samuel P.
Case #: H023361
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 6 DCA
Opinion Date: 07/02/2002
Subsequent History: None

The mother of three children appealed dispositional orders removing her children on grounds the juvenile court failed to establish that the notice requirements under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) were met and failed to apply the requirements of the ICWA correctly. The social worker's report for the jurisdictional and dispositional hearings included the information that the ICWA might apply through maternal relatives. Notice under the ICWA, however, was given as to only one of the three children and in the hearings that followed no mention was made of the Indian status of the children or ICWA notice…

View Full Summary
Name: In re N.S.
Case #: D039102
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 03/28/2002
Subsequent History: None

When a cousin was "nonaccidentally injured", minor N.S. was removed from her parents'home and her father was ordered not to live at home. At the six-month review hearing, the court allowed the father to return to the home without supervision, but continued its jurisdiction of N.S. The father appealed continued jurisdiction by the juvenile court. The Court of Appeal held that Welfare and Institutions Code section 364, not 366.21, subdivision (e) applied and that there was insufficient evidence under that section because the evidence had not established "by a preponderance of evidence that the conditions still exist…

View Full Summary
Name: In re Mark L.
Case #: D037827
District 4 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 12/13/2001
Subsequent History: None

The appellate court here affirmed an order denying visitation where the trial court’s finding that visitation would be detrimental to the minor was supported by substantial evidence. The minor was twelve years old and did not want to visit with his father, and said he was afraid of him, even in a supervised setting. The fact that the minor did not want to visit was sufficient to show that forced contact could harm him emotionally. However, father was prejudiced at the twelve month review hearing by the refusal of the trial court to allow the minor’s therapist…

View Full Summary
Name: In re Emmanuel R.
Case #: A095992
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 3
Opinion Date: 12/11/2001
Subsequent History: None

The minor was a dependent of the juvenile court based on his mother’s alcohol abuse. The state of Florida denied a Interstate Compact on Placement of Children (ICPC) request to place the minor with his father because of father’s extensive criminal record and past history with Florida’s child welfare authorities. The juvenile court ordered visitation with the father, despite the ICPC placement study, and County Counsel appealed. Here, the appellate court affirmed the order. The ICPC does not prevent a California court from ordering visitation between a dependent child and his non-custodial parent even where an…

View Full Summary
Name: In re Harry N.
Case #: B145977
District 2 DCA
Division: 2
Opinion Date: 11/28/2001
Subsequent History: None

The minor was removed from his biological mother at birth, and placed with a foster family who wished to adopt him. The minor’s paternal aunt and uncle, who lived in Puerto Rico, also wished to adopt him. The Department wanted placement with the aunt and uncle, whose social study had been delayed due to their residence outside California. The minor, who had lived with the foster family for a year by the time of the 366.26 hearing, was bonded to that family. The Court ordered that the minor was to remain with the foster family and…

View Full Summary
Name: In re Jonathan D.
Case #: C037483
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 3 DCA
Opinion Date: 09/05/2001
Subsequent History: None

At the section 366.26 hearing, the court was notified that the Indian Child Welfare Act applied. The social worker advised that a representative of the tribe had called her, but the matter had not been resolved, and she was waiting for the tribe’s representative to call her back. Only one of the three tribes notified received ten days notice. The court proceeded with the .26 hearing, and terminated parental rights. The appellate court here reversed. The notice provided to the tribes was not adequate because it was not served at least ten days before the…

View Full Summary
Name: In re Christina A.
Case #: C036360
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 3 DCA
Opinion Date: 08/27/2001
Subsequent History: None

The minor appealed from the order which set the six month review hearing six months from the date of the disposition hearing, instead of the jurisdictional hearing. Welfare and Institutions Code section 361.5, subdivision (a)(3) mandates that services shall not exceed six months from the earlier of the date the child entered foster care, or the date of the jurisdictional hearing. Although that section speaks to the length of services, it suggests that the time lines are the same for the setting of the review hearing. Therefore, the review hearing should have been set in this…

View Full Summary
Name: Cesar V. v. Superior Court
Case #: G028726
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 3
Opinion Date: 08/23/2001
Subsequent History: None

Father’s petition for writ of mandate was granted where the social worker failed to adequately assess the paternal grandmother’s home for placement of the child and the court refused to place the child with the paternal grandmother. Father had made it clear from the time of the six month review hearing that he wanted the children placed with his mother. DSS recommended against placement with the mother following an incomplete evaluation. Between the six month review and the permanency planning hearing, a change in placement became necessary. DSS placed the children in a fost-adopt home. …

View Full Summary
Name: In re Santos Y.
Case #: B144822
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 2
Opinion Date: 10/19/2001
Subsequent History: Modif. opn on rehg. without chg in jmt., Rev. Denied 2/13/02

In this dependency case, the trial court ordered the minor removed from his fost-adopt parents in California and pursuant to the ICWA, placed him in a home on an Indian reservation in Minnesota. In this opinion, the appellate court reversed the trial court’s order, finding application of the ICWA to the minor to be unconstitutional as applied to the minor. The minor was of mixed heritage and had never lived with an Indian family. (He was placed with the fost-adopt parents at birth.) Since there was no Indian family to preserve, "repatriation" to the…

View Full Summary