Latest First District Victories
A155659
June 2, 2021
Attorney: William Capriola
Categories: Criminal Evidentiary Sufficiency of the Evidence
In a case in which appellant was convicted of, among other sex offenses, annoying or molesting a child under Penal Code section 647.6, subdivision (c)(2), the Court of Appeal found that insufficient evidence established an essential element of the crime – that appellant’s conduct was both objectively and subjectively irritating or disturbing. Additionally, the Court found trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to object to inadmissible and prejudicial testimony on several significant topics. Thus, the court reversed the judgment of conviction as to all counts.
S255839
May 27, 2021
Attorney: Leslie Barry
Categories: Dependency Permanency Planning (Section 366.26)
[Published Decision __ Cal.5th___] The Supreme Court held that a parent is not required to show progress in addressing issues such as drug abuse that led to the dependency in order to establish the beneficial parent-child relationship exception of WIC section 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i). With respect to the standard of review, the Court held that the first two prongs of the exceptions are reviewed for substantial evidence. The third prong, whether termination would be detrimental to the child due to the parent-child relationship, is reviewed under a hybrid standard. The factual findings as to detriment are reviewed for substantial evidence but the ultimate decision, whether the harm of losing the relationship outweighs the benefits of adoption, is reviewed under the abuse of discretion standard.
S260928
May 5, 2021
Attorney: Louise Collari
Categories: Dependency General
[Published Decision: 11 Cal.5th 234] The Supreme Court held that when an attorney fails to file a timely appeal in accordance with a client’s instructions, the parent may seek relief based on the attorney’s failure to provide competent representation. Whether relief is granted will depend on the parent’s promptness and diligence in pursuing the appeal.
A161510
March 11, 2021
Attorney: Leslie Barry
Categories: Dependency Petitions to Modify (Section 388)
In this published opinion, the Court of Appeal stated that due process requires that a parent is entitled to notice of dependency proceedings and the Agency must act with diligence to locate a missing parents. The Court agreed with Ansley v. Superior Court that a parent need not make a separate showing of best interests when raising a notice violation. The Court of Appeal reversed finding father had shown he was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his section 388 motion.
A159045
November 25, 2020
Attorney: Carol Koenig
Categories: Dependency Disposition
Father appealed the juvenile court’s jurisdictional and dispositional findings removing his daughter from parental custody and denying him reunification services. The Court of Appeal agreed with father that he did not receive proper notice of the proceedings, the juvenile court erred by proceeding in his absence, and the error was not harmless.
A157222
September 30, 2020
Attorney: Jesse Rodriguez
Categories: Dependency General
The Court of Appeal agreed that substantial evidence did not support the juvenile court’s denial of appellant’s request for presumed father status. Despite the lack of a biological connection, the Court remanded the matter for the juvenile court to reconsider appellant’s request.
A158779
September 11, 2020
Attorney: Seth Gorman
Categories: Dependency ICWA
In this appeal from jurisdiction/disposition, the Court of Appeal that the juvenile court and Agency failed to comply with the inquiry and notice requirements of the ICWA. The matter was remanded for ICWA compliance.
A156550
September 8, 2020
Attorney: S. Lynne Klein
Categories: Dependency General
[Published Decision – 54 Cal.App.5th 298] The Court of Appeal found that the juvenile court never provided father with notice of the procedure he should follow to establish that he was the minor’s father and protect his parental rights. This failure was prejudicial and the juvenile court’s orders were reversed.
A159073
July 31, 2020
Attorney: Seth Gorman
Categories: Dependency Permanency Planning (Section 366.26)
The Court of Appeal agreed with father that the juvenile court misconstrued the legal standards applicable to the beneficial parent-child relationship and, therefore, did not exercise its discretion in an informed way.
A156797
June 25, 2020
Attorney: Seth Gorman
Categories: Dependency Permanency Planning (Section 366.26)
The Court of Appeal reversed the order terminating parental rights finding that the juvenile court erred by improperly considering the likelihood that mother and the children would have post-adoption contact when it determine the beneficial parent child relationship was inapplicable.
