Dependency (300)

Name: In re Jonathan D.
Case #: C037483
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 3 DCA
Citation: 92 Cal.App.4th 195
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 Emmanuel H.
Case #: B146128
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 4
Citation: 92 Cal.App.4th 150
Opinion Date: 09/06/2001
Subsequent History: None

Mother was denied reunification services with her newborn son based on a finding that she had previously failed to reunify with his brothers. Mother was incarcerated and suffering from mental illness. In her request for a writ of mandate, she argued that the court erred when it failed to provide services without considering her subsequent efforts to address the cause of the removal of the first two children. The appellate court here rejected the reasoning of Shawn S. v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal. App. 4th 1424, and followed the conflicting interpretation of section 361.5, subdivision (b)(10)…

View Full Summary
Name: In re Crystal J.
Case #: F037209
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 5 DCA
Citation: 92 Cal.App.4th 186
Opinion Date: 09/10/2001
Subsequent History: Review Denied December 19, 2001

The minor in this case appealed the denial of her motion to declare her aunt and uncle to be her de facto parents. In the published portion of this opinion, the appellate court held that the minor lacked standing to appeal the court’s ruling on the motion because she was not the aggrieved party. The rights afforded to a de facto parent affect only those persons, not any other party. Since appellant was a party to the proceeding, she had a right to be present, to present evidence regarding her relationship with the aunt and uncle, and…

View Full Summary
Name: In re Santos Y.
Case #: B144822
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 2
Citation: 92 Cal.App.4th 1274
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
Name: Karen H. v. Superior Court
Case #: C038357
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 3 DCA
Citation: 91 Cal.App.4th 501
Opinion Date: 08/10/2001
Subsequent History: None

The trial court properly found that appellant had "resisted treatment" under Welfare and Institutions Code section 361.5, subdivision (b)(12) where she participated in treatment, but continued to abuse drugs and alcohol, thus demonstrating her inability to use the skills taught to maintain sobriety. Therefore the trial court properly denied reunification to mother under that section, and mother’s extraordinary writ was…

View Full Summary
Name: In re Nicholas H.
Case #: A092188
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 2
Citation: 91 Cal.App.4th 86
Opinion Date: 07/31/2001
Subsequent History: Review granted 11/14/01 (S100490)

Editor's Note: review granted on this case. Appellant was not the biological father of the dependent minor, but lived with the minor and argued that he should be considered the presumed father. The trial court granted appellant presumed father status. The appellate court here reversed. Although appellant qualified as a presumed father under Family Code section 7611(d), the presumption was rebutted by appellant’s own admission under oath that he was not the biological father of the child. The presumption set forth in section 7611 is a presumption that the biological father of the child is in…

View Full Summary
Name: In re Patricia T.
Case #: B143242
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 4
Citation: 91 Cal.App.4th 400
Opinion Date: 08/07/2001
Subsequent History: Rev. denied 11/14/01. Decision without pub opinion.

Where a parent waived her rights and admitted the allegations of the petition at the dispositional hearing, her waiver of reunification services was also valid. Mother submitted a form waiving her rights, including an advisement that reunification services might not be offered, and signed a declaration that her attorney had explained the consequences of admitting the petition. The totality of the circumstances showed that appellant knowingly and intelligently waived her rights, and that she fully understood the consequences. Under California Rules of Court, rule 1449, a parent admitting a petition must be advised of the possible consequences…

View Full Summary
Name: Francisco G. v. Superior Court
Case #: H022860
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 6 DCA
Citation: 91 Cal.App.4th 586
Opinion Date: 08/10/2001
Subsequent History: None

Appellant was the father of the minor child in question, and was not offered reunification services in this dependency proceeding pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 361.5, subdivision (b)(10)(b), (prior termination of parental rights). On appeal, he argued that the bypass provisions did not apply to him because he was not a presumed father, and therefore not a "parent" in the prior proceedings. The appellate court here denied father’s extraordinary writ. The bypass provisions can be applied to a father whose parental rights to a sibling or half-sibling were terminated while his status in the previous dependency…

View Full Summary
Name: In re Jasmine P.
Case #: B146014
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 3
Citation: 91 Cal.App.4th 617
Opinion Date: 08/13/2001
Subsequent History: Rev. denied 10/10/01

The juvenile court ordered the minor, Jasmine, placed in a legal guardianship with her grandmother as a permanent plan. The order made no provision for visitation between Jasmine and her mother, and mother did not seek a visitation order at the trial level. On appeal, mother argued that the juvenile court had a mandatory duty to make a visitation order or find that visitation would be detrimental, and therefore the issue was not waived on appeal. The appellate court here affirmed. Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.36, subdivision (c)(4), did not mandate that the court make…

View Full Summary
Name: Renee J. v. Superior Court
Case #: S090730
Court: CA Supreme Court
District CalSup
Citation: 26 Cal.4th 735
Opinion Date: 08/16/2001
Subsequent History: None

Mother was denied reunification services under subdivision (b)(10) of Welfare and Institutions Code section 361.5, (prior failed reunification[subpart A] or prior termination [subpart B], where the parent has not made reasonable efforts to treat the problems which led to removal). At issue in this Supreme Court opinion was whether the language about reasonable efforts applies to both sections of section (b)(10), or only to the later section regarding termination. The court here held that the no-reasonable-effort clause was applicable only to subpart (B) of section 361.5, subd. (b)(10). Therefore the Court of Appeal’s opinion granting mother’s relief…

View Full Summary