Skip to content
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: 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: 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: 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: Vinson v. Kinsey
Case #: A166582
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 2
Opinion Date: 06/27/2023
Subsequent History: Ordered published 7/26/2023

The denial of a request for a domestic violence restraining order (DVRO) was an abuse of discretion where the trial court failed to adequately consider the summation of evidence presented by petitioner or appreciate the varying responses of battered women. Vinson filed a request for a DVRO against Kinsey, the father of her two children. Vinson listed the most recent abuse as an incident where Kinsey had threatened her about a month prior. In addition to this incident, Vinson included prior incidents where Kinsey had punched her, destroyed furniture in the home, and sent threatening text messages. In support of…

View Full Summary
Name: Michael M. v. Robin J.
Case #: D080707
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 05/09/2023
Subsequent History: Ordered published 6/2/2023

(ordered published 6/2/2023)

The court erred in denying a request for renewal of a Domestic Violence Restraining Order (DVRO) where the party seeking the order had demonstrated a reasonable apprehension of future abuse. Robin J. was granted a three-year DVRO protecting her from Michael M., the father of their two children, after a domestic violence incident in 2018. About six months later, Michael M. was arrested after strangling Robin and holding a knife to her neck while their children were present. In 2021, Robin requested renewal of the DVRO. The court denied her request, finding that the request for renewal was…

View Full Summary
Name: In re Matthew M.
Case #: B319258
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 7
Opinion Date: 03/06/2023

The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion when it authorized the vaccination against COVID-19 of twelve-year-old dependent minor over the objection of Mother. The minor was removed from his parents and placed in a therapeutic care home due to minor's emotional and behavioral challenges. At the six-month review hearing, Mother asked that the minor be exempted from receiving the COVID-19 vaccine due to religious beliefs and concern about possible side effects. The juvenile court noted that Mother had not provided evidence of an appropriate religious exemption and authorized vaccination of the minor. Mother did not appeal those findings and…

View Full Summary
Name: In re J.M.
Case #: B313754
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 4
Opinion Date: 03/02/2023
Subsequent History: Ordered published 3/10/2023

Continued jurisdiction was not necessary when the minors were doing well in Mother's care and a finding of detriment pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 361 was not required because it was in the minors’ best interests to award Mother full physical custody. The minors were removed from their parents due to "ongoing parental conflict," in which Father was the primary aggressor. One of the minors, J., was exhibiting serious mental health concerns as a result of the family dynamic in the home. The minors were placed with maternal grandparents and the parents were ordered to participate in reunification…

View Full Summary
Name: In re N.M.
Case #: B315559
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 02/01/2023
Subsequent History: Ordered published 3/2/2023

The juvenile court’s exit orders were an abuse of discretion where they sought to punish Father rather than serve the best interests of the minor. The minor was removed from Mother due to alcohol abuse and was released to the previously noncustodial Father. The minor continued to live in maternal grandmother’s home because Father’s work schedule did not allow him to care for the minor full time. Mother completed her court-ordered case plan, but Father did not comply with drug testing orders, and visited with the minor inconsistently due to his work schedule. At the final review hearing, the juvenile…

View Full Summary