resources image
FDAP Victories
 Filter by Category

 Or, Search by Keyword

 Currently Displaying:

  • Category: All
  • Entries: 1 - 5 of 1774

> click here for tips on using this database and access to pre March 2005 victories

In re C.C. A151275 (Div. 1)
category/ies: Disposition
date posted: 2018-01-29
full opinion (PDF): not available
attorney: Mara Bernstein
FDAP buddy: Richard Such

Mother appealed from the juvenile court’s dispositional order changing the child’s placement, reducing mother’s visitation, and deficiencies in ICWA notice and inquiry. The Court of Appeal reversed the visitation order finding that mother was not given notice that a change in the visitation was sought. The Court agreed that mother’s due process rights were abrogated by the failure to provide her with notice of the requested and an opportunity to present evidence and cross-examine witnesses. The court also remanded for the Department to comply with notice provisions of the ICWA.

In re S.J. A151051 (Div. 2)
category/ies: Jurisdiction-termination
date posted: 2018-01-19
full opinion (PDF): not available
attorney: Patricia Saucier
FDAP buddy: Louise Collari

Mother appealed the juvenile court’s decision removing her two children from her custody, awarding sole custody to their previously noncustodial father, and terminating jurisdiction. Finding a lack of evidence in the record concerning the father’s circumstances and the juvenile court’s failure to explain its decision to immediately terminate jurisdiction, the Court reversed and remanded the matter for further proceedings. The Court stated that father’s desire to assume custody, the children’s young age, or the fact that father had cared for one of the children on his own for perhaps two months, was not sufficient to show that continued supervision was unnecessary. The juvenile court may not terminate jurisdiction until it analyzed whether ongoing supervision of the child was necessary.

In re L.V. A151463 (Div. 3)
category/ies: Disposition, Disposition
date posted: 2018-01-18
full opinion (PDF): not available
attorney: Amy Seff
FDAP buddy: Louise Collari

Mother appealed from the dispositional order removing her four daughters from her custody and ordering supervised visitation. Mother had requested that the children be returned to her care with family maintenance services, or in the alternative, increased visitation. The Court of Appeal found that the evidence before the court provided absolutely no basis for a finding, much less a finding based on clear and convincing evidence, that there was a substantial risk of harm to the children if returned to their home, or that there were no reasonable means of protecting them without removal. The children may not be removed from their home because the Bureau was “curious” how the relationship between mother and father would play out” or for an observation period to test the Bureau’s speculation.

In re Christian K. A150346 (Div. 1)
category/ies: Section 388, Termination of parental rights-Exceptions
date posted: 2017-09-07
full opinion (PDF): not available
attorney: Jacob Olson
FDAP buddy: Amy Grigsby

other appealed from the denial of her section 388 petition for modification and the termination of her parental rights. The Court reversed juvenile court’s order terminating mother’s parental rights and identifying adoption with paternal grandparents in Denmark as the permanent plan for the minor. The Court agreed with mother that she had established the applicability of the beneficial-relationship exception under WIC 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i). The Court found that due to the undisputed strong bond between mother and the minor, an exceptional situation existed which overcame the Legislature’s preference for adoption. The Court also ordered the case remanded to the juvenile court so that it could rule on mother’s section 388 petition. The Court stated that in light of its conclusion that the juvenile court erred in terminating mother’s parental rights, it would be appropriate to remand the entire case so the court could take into consideration any new evidence or changed circumstances so that it may consider the current best interests of the minor.

People v. Monckton, A147219 (Div. Three)
category/ies: Attorneys Fees
date posted: 2017-07-17
full opinion (PDF): not available
attorney: Mark D. Johnson
FDAP buddy: Brad O'Connell

Court reversed order for defendant to pay $250 for defense costs for representation. The defendant himself objected to the fee and court found that the record was insufficient to support a finding of ability to pay where the defendant was sentenced to two years in prison.


Copyright © 2018 First District Appellate Project. All rights reserved