Latest First District Victories

Results: 1 - 10 of 184

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.

A157994

January 24, 2020

Attorney: Seth Gorman

Categories: Dependency   ICWA   

The Court of Appeal conditionally reversed the order terminating parental rights and remanded the matter to the juvenile court with the directions to order the Agency to comply with the inquiry and notice provisions of ICWA and the current versions of sections 224.2 and 224.3 with specific direction that the Agency was to make proper and adequate inquiry of mother and known maternal and paternal relatives concerning potential Indian ancestry and to send new ICWA notices to all appropriate tribes.

A155062

December 17, 2019

Attorney: Jeffrey Kross

Categories: Criminal   Sentencing   

In a case where appellant was convicted of three felonies (making criminal threats; stalking; and threatening a public official), the Court of Appeal found that his sentence for threatening a public official must be stayed under Penal Code section 654. The Court also remanded the case for the trial court to determine whether appellant’s punishment for multiple violations of the restraining order must also be stayed under section 654.

A155677

December 9, 2019

Attorney: Nathaniel Miller

Categories: Criminal   Fourth Amendment   

In reviewing the denial of appellant’s motion to suppress, the Court of Appeal found that while the circumstances of the case may have supported a detention, they did not, either singularly or collectively, give rise to a reasonable suspicion that appellant was armed or dangerous. Here, appellant matched the description of a cell phone theft suspect, “appeared nervous” when speaking to the officer, “deceptively answered” the officer’s question, was wearing baggy clothing, and had a “relatively heavy” backpack. The Court of Appeal remanded the case and instructed the juvenile court to vacate its order denying the suppression motion, enter a new order granting the motion, and allow the minor to withdraw his plea.

Results: 1 - 10 of 184

^