First District Panel Victories

Results: 1 - 10 of 630
1 2 3 63


In an appeal from the 18-month review hearing, the Court agrees that the reasonable services finding is not supported by substantial evidence. Father was improperly denied any form of visitation or contact wtih the children after the spring of 2021. The juvenile court’s delegation to the Agency of whether visitation between father and the children would occur was improper.


In an appeal from disposition, the Court agreed with mother that reversal of the ICWA finding was necessary because an insufficient inquiry was made of extended family members who were known to the Agency. The Agency had not conceded error or acknowledged its duty. Accordingly, the Court vacated the finding that ICWA applied and the Agency was directed to comply with its ongoing duties under ICWA.


In an appeal from jurisdiction and disposition, the appellate court agreed that the Department conducted insufficient further inquiry as required by WIC 224.2(e). The Department did not obtain information from one of the paternal relatives which was reasily obtainable and was likely to bear meaningfully upon whether the child was an Indian child. The ICWA finding was vacated and the matter remanded for the Deparment to conduct further inquiry.


In an appeal from the termination of parental rights, the Department concedes that it failed to comply with its duty of inquiry under the ICWA. The Court agrees and conditionally affirms the order terminating parental rights. The matter is remanded to the juvenile court for the limited purpose of ensuring ICWA compliance.


In an appeal from the termination of parental rights, the Court of Appeal finds that the ICWA inquiry was inadequate since no attempt was made by the Department to ask available relatives about the child’s possible Indian ancestry. The court adopts the standard set forth in In re Benjamin M. and finds the error prejudicial. In addition, the court holds that the duty to inquire of extended family members applies to WIC 340 and 306 removals.


In this LPS appeal, the Court of Appeal reversed the imposition of special disabilities, finding that the record does not reflect that “the trial court was aware of the legal standards for imposing any of the special disabilities, that it considered evidence relevant to these standards, or that it made any findings utilizing those standards.”


The Court agrees with mother that the Department failed to conduct an adequate inquiry under the ICWA. Many maternal relatives were actively involved during the proceeedings but the Department failed to inquire about any possible Indian heritage. The order terminating parental rights was conditionally reversed and remanded with directions to comply with the ICWA.


The Court of Appeal held that the trial court abused its discretion by ordering appellant to pay noneconomic victim restitution pursuant to PC 1202.4(f)(3)(F), where there was no evidence of the impact of appellant’s crimes on the victim and thus no rational basis for the court’s noneconomic restitution award. The Court remanded for further restitution proceedings.


PC 667(a) applies to any “person convicted of a serious felony who previously has been convicted of a serious felony” and establishes “a five-year enhancement for each such prior conviction on charges brought and tried separately.” The Court of Appeal vacated one of appellant’s two PC 667 serious felony enhancements because they arose out of the same prior proceeding.


The Court of Appeal reversed the 15 percent administrative fee attached to appellant’s victim restitution order, finding that the applicable statute  (former PC 1203.1(l)) was repealed by AB 177.