Skip to content
Name: In re D.P.
Case #: D081396
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 06/28/2023
Subsequent History: Ordered published 6/30/2023

(ordered published 6/30/2023)

The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in denying placement of the minor with the adoptive parents of minor’s siblings. The minor was removed from parents at birth and placed with Defacto Parents. Shortly after reunification services were terminated and the section 366.26 hearing was set, the adoptive parents of minor’s siblings (Adoptive Parents) filed a section 388 petition, requesting that minor be placed with them. Following an evidentiary hearing the juvenile court denied the petition, finding that it was not in minor’s best interest to be moved to another foster family. Minor and Adoptive Parents appealed…

View Full Summary
Name: In re J.S.
Case #: E067122
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 2
Opinion Date: 04/05/2017

Reversal was required where the juvenile court refused to allow mother's testimony at the 366.26 hearing about the minor's relationship with his siblings. During mother's testimony at a 366.26 hearing, mother's counsel asked her if she had any other children. Mother responded that she did, and counsel for CFS objected on the basis of relevance. Mother's counsel explained that the minor at issue had a relationship with the maternal family, including his full siblings. The juvenile court stated that the only relevant relationship was the one between the minor and parents, and curtailed the testimony. …

View Full Summary
Name: In re K.R.
Case #: B247519
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 5
Opinion Date: 04/25/2013

Juvenile court improperly dismissed petition where father abused stepdaughter putting his younger biological daughter at risk. DCFS received a referral that N.C. had been sexually abused by her stepfather, and feared that he would sexually abuse her younger half-sibling, K.R. The juvenile court removed N.C., but not K.R., opining that her situation was different because she was stepfather's biological daughter, the abuse had happened six years earlier, and father's abuse of N.C. did not put K.R. at risk. Since N.C. was now over 18, the juvenile court dismissed the petition. DCFS petitioned for writ of mandate, contending that the…

View Full Summary
Name: In re David R.
Case #: B239629
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 12/31/2012
Subsequent History: Review granted, depublished, transferred

Son may not be removed from father who molested female sibling absent any evidence that son was also at substantial risk of sexual abuse. The juvenile court took jurisdiction over six-year-old S.G. and two-year-old David, because father molested S.G. in an apartment away from the family home where he lived with David, S.G., and S.G.'s mother. No one else was present when father molested S.G. The court based the jurisdiction on its view that "both sexes are at risk where this type of sexual abuse occurs." The appellate court held that the court committed reversible error because it applied an…

View Full Summary
Name: In re I.J.
Case #: B237271
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 8
Opinion Date: 07/24/2012
Subsequent History: Review granted 9/19/12: S204622

There was sufficient evidence that male siblings of a female sexual abuse victim were at risk. Minors were made dependents of the court due to sexual abuse of 14-year-old minor. On appeal, father argued that there was insufficient evidence that he sexually abused the 14-year-old female minor, and insufficient evidence that the younger minors, including three boys, were at risk. The appellate court rejected the arguments and affirmed. The only evidence refuting the detailed evidence of sexual abuse was the minor's unconvincing recant. Also, although there is a split in authority as to whether minor…

View Full Summary
Name: In re D.M.
Case #: D060598
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 04/24/2012

Minor lacked standing to challenge the adoptability of younger siblings because their adoptability did not affect his rights. The 10-year old minor, Tomas, appealed a judgment terminating parental rights over his younger half-siblings and choosing adoption as their permanent plan, challenging their adoptability as well as the inapplicability of the sibling relationship exception. The appellate court found sufficient evidence to support the court's assessment that the sibling relationship exception did not apply. Although the minors had a pleasant relationship most of the time, Tomas did not show that the termination of the sibling relationship would be sufficiently…

View Full Summary
Name: In re A.R.
Case #: A131535
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 5
Opinion Date: 02/27/2012

Juvenile court had no jurisdiction to order sibling visitation to be paid for by father where dependency petition over father's child was dismissed. Minors Ashley and Ashton were the subject of dependency petitions. Appellant James is the father of only Ashton. The juvenile court found "not true" all allegations regarding Ashton and his petition was dismissed. The juvenile court ordered supervised visitation between the minors and ordered James to facilitate and pay for those supervised visits. James argued on appeal that because he was not Ashley's parent, and because the court dismissed Ashton's petition without adjudging him a…

View Full Summary