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.
