Dependency (300)

Name: In re S.R.
Case #: S285759
Court: CA Supreme Court
Opinion Date: 12/01/2025

A parent’s appeal was not moot because the harm she would suffer from inclusion on the California’s Child Abuse Central Index (CACI) could be redressed if she prevailed on challenging the child abuse allegation on appeal.  After a physical confrontation between Mother and two of her daughters, the juvenile court removed the two youngest daughters from the home. Mother appealed. The Court of Appeal dismissed Mother’s appeal as moot because the children were eventually returned to her care. The Supreme Court held that Mother’s appeal was not moot because (1) she showed ongoing harm due to…

View Full Summary
Name: In re R.L.
Case #: B341295
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 8
Opinion Date: 10/14/2025

Juvenile court did not err in dismissing petition where a single lapse of parents’ judgment did not compel a finding of risk of harm to Minor. The 10-month old minor was detained from Father and released to Mother after a car accident where Father was driving while Mother and Minor were in the back seat and Minor was in mother’s lap and not a car seat. Both parents were under the influence of alcohol. Both Mother and Minor suffered injuries as a result of the accident, but Minor was not severely injured. At the jurisdiction hearing, the juvenile court dismissed…

View Full Summary
Name: Hart v. Hart
Case #: B338817
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 2
Opinion Date: 03/21/2025

A Domestic Violence Restraining Order (DVRO) renewal is for a five-year minimum period. A.H. was granted a one-year DVRO in conjunction with the dissolution of her marriage to S.H. About five years later, A.H. requested another DVRO against S.H. and was granted a nine-month DVRO. Just prior to the expiration of the nine-month DVRO, A.H. filed a request to renew it. The trial court ordered another nine-month DVRO, over the objection of A.H., finding that it had the discretion to order a DVRO for a period less than five years. A.H. appealed and the reviewing court reversed. The plain language…

View Full Summary
Name: Adoption of X.D.
Case #: B343632
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 8
Opinion Date: 09/29/2025

Substantial evidence did not support a finding that Father was a Kelsey S. father where he had assaulted Mother and sent threatening messages to her during her pregnancy. X.D. was placed for adoption by Mother shortly after birth. Mother left Father two weeks after learning she was pregnant due to a domestic violence incident. Father knew that Mother was pregnant, though Mother told Father that X.D. was “not here no more.” Father did not further inquire about what had happened to X.D. Father then opposed the adoption of X.D., claiming he was a Kelsey S. father. The juvenile court found…

View Full Summary
Name: In re Miguel J.
Case #: B339932
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 8
Opinion Date: 09/22/2025

There was sufficient evidence to support section 300, subdivision (a) allegations where Father struck Mother while she was holding Minor. Minor was detained from Father and released to Mother after police were called to a domestic violence incident. Father struck Mother while she was holding four-month old Minor and accidentally struck Minor. Mother stayed at a shelter for a week with Minor but then returned to the family home. The juvenile court sustained domestic violence counts under Section 300, subdivisions (a) and (b). Family Maintenance services were ordered for Mother and enhancement services for Father. Father appealed and the reviewing…

View Full Summary
Name: In re A.M.
Case #: B343879
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 8
Opinion Date: 09/18/2025

Juvenile court erred in removing Minor from incarcerated Father who had made a suitable plan for Minor’s care. Father had been granted sole physical and joint legal custody of Minor. When Father became incarcerated, he arranged for his sister to care for Minor. When Mother learned of Father’s incarceration, she refused to return Minor to paternal aunt and then neglected Minor, leading to the present dependency case. The juvenile court sustained jurisdictional allegations against Father based on his criminal history and removed Minor from both parents. Minor appealed and the reviewing court reversed. Section 361(d) is applicable here because Minor…

View Full Summary
Name: In re X.D.
Case #: B338140
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 5
Opinion Date: 09/10/2025

Section 300, subdivision (g) jurisdiction is proper where an incarcerated parent suggests only unsuitable caregivers for their child. Minor was detained after Mother was killed and Father’s whereabouts were unknown. Minor had not had contact with Father in over three years. Father was located in prison and expressed a desire to reunify with Minor. Father recommended his mother or brother as potential placements for Minor. The Agency determined paternal grandmother was an unsuitable placement and paternal uncle never responded to any Agency phone calls. The juvenile court found true the section 300, subdivision (g) jurisdictional allegation and Father appealed. The…

View Full Summary
Name: In re Miguel J.
Case #: B339932
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 8
Opinion Date: 09/22/2025

Substantial evidence supported jurisdiction under WIC 300(a) because Father and Mother engaged in multiple acts of domestic violence that exposed child to substantial risk of nonaccidental harm. Additionally, modification of the language in the counts to reflect that Father hit child accidentally while hitting Mother was not required because the current language accurately reflected the court’s findings. Substantial evidence supported removing the child from Father’s custody because Father and Mother intended to maintain relationship and there was strong likelihood violence between them would continue.

The full opinion is available on the court’s website…

View Full Summary
Name: In re A.M.
Case #: B343879
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 8
Opinion Date: 09/18/2025

A juvenile court may not remove a child from her father's custody simply because her father is in prison. Under WIC 361 (d), the question is whether the child would face an identified, specific risk of serious physical harm. Although the minor’s father was incarcerated there was no evidence that the care he had arranged posed a hazard to the minor. When an incarcerated parent can make suitable arrangements for a child’s care during incarceration, the juvenile court lacks a basis to take jurisdiction in the case, and the Department of Children and Family Services has…

View Full Summary
Name: In re Ja O.
Case #: S280572
Court: CA Supreme Court
Opinion Date: 08/04/2025

Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) initial inquiry requirements are required for all minors, regardless of how they were brought into the system. Minors were removed by way of a section 340 warrant before AB 81 took effect. On appeal, Mother argued that the Agency had not complied with the ICWA initial inquiry requirements. The Court of Appeal found that the ICWA initial inquiry requirements were not applicable because the minors were removed pursuant to a warrant. The California Supreme Court (CSC) granted review and reversed. The passage of AB 81 resolved the conflict of whether the extended-family initial inquiry duty…

View Full Summary