Court of Appeal struck maximum term of confinement, imposed where the minor was not removed from parental custody as set out in Welf. & Inst Code section 726, subd(d)(1).
A151473
- April 13, 2018
- Division: One
- Attorney: Cheryl Cotterill
- Categories: Criminal, Delinquency, Sentencing
A148539
- April 11, 2018
- Division: One
- Attorney: Richard Such
- Categories: Criminal, Right to Counsel
Court of Appeal reversed no contest plea (lewd acts upon a child under 14, rape, multiple victim allegation) resulting in 35 years-to-life sentence, based on the trial court abusing its discretion in denying request to discharge retained counsel and court failing to properly advise defendant about the consequences of plea. The erroneous denial of right to discharge retained counsel is presumptively prejudicial and automatically requires reversal.
A151369
- April 10, 2018
- Division: Five
- Attorney: Violet Elizabeth Grayson
- Categories: Criminal, Delinquency, Sentencing
The Court of Appeal reversed the DJF placement due to a lack of evidence of benefit to the minor. Although the probation report asserted that DJF was the best placement to address the needs of the minor and it can be presumed that assertion was based on some knowledge of the DJF, the “unexplained and unsupported assertion of possible benefit is not evidence of reasonable, credible, and of solid value” from which the juvenile court could make an informed decision. Remanded for a new disposition hearing.
A146956
- April 3, 2018
- Division: Two
- Attorney: Maggie Shrout
- Categories: Criminal, Sentencing
Court of Appeal agreed with reasoning in People v. Abdallah (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 736., that it was error to impose Penal Code section 667.5, subd. (b), one-year prior prison term enhancement after underlying felony conviction was reduced to a misdemeanor. Noting that once felony is reduced to a misdemeanor, the imposition of the enhancement would be contrary to voter intent in enacting Prop 47.
A151003
- March 29, 2018
- Division: Five
- Attorney: Linda Conrad
- Categories: Dependency, ICWA
The Court of Appeal reversed the order of the juvenile court terminating parental rights due to the failure of the Department to comply with the notice requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act. The Department sent notice to some of the Sioux and Apache tribes but not all of them. The Court of Appeal remanded the case for the Department to notify the remaining Sioux and Apache tribes.
A151853
- March 29, 2018
- Division: Five
- Attorney: Janet Saalfield
- Categories: Dependency, Disposition, Jurisdiction
Mother raised multiple issues on appeal from the trial court’s jurisdictional and dispositional findings and orders. The Court of Appeal agreed with mother that the visitation order stating “as arranged by the parents” effectively delegated to father the discretion to allow visitation. The visitation order was reversed and the matter was remanded for further proceedings.
A152645
- March 23, 2018
- Division: One
- Attorney: Seth Gorman
- Categories: Dependency, ICWA, Jurisdiction
In this appeal from jurisdictional and dispositional findings, the Court of Appeal found ICWA errors due to the Bureau’s failure to notice all federally recognized Apache tribes, not just the Mescalero tribe. With respect to its duty of inquiry, the Court stated the Agency should conduct a meaningful investigation of maternal grandmother’s purported Indian ancestry, making genuine efforts to locate family members who have more information. The Court agreed with mother that the record did not contain evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to support the subdivision (b) allegation based on mother’s alleged chronic untreated mental health condition. Even though other jurisdictional allegations were sustained, the Court reversed as to the subdivision (b) finding because it could have consequences for mother beyond jurisdiction. The Court also struck the references to untreated mental health in the section 300, subdivision (j) allegations. The Court agreed that the juvenile court did not give mother the required advisements or obtain a personal waiver from her but found that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
A151383
- March 21, 2018
- Division: Two
- Attorney: Gino De Solenni
- Categories: Dependency, ICWA
On an appeal from the termination of parental rights, the Court of Appeal conditionally reversed and remanded the matter for compliance with the ICWA. Mother and father argued that the Department did not comply with the notice requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act. The Court of Appeal found that the Department had sent notice to the Apache tribes but had violated the ICWA in failing to send notice to the Cherokee tribes and Karuk tribe referenced by mother. The Department argued that it had contacted grandfather after the jurisdiction pretrial hearing to inquire about his Indian ancestry. However, the Court of Appeal stated that there was nothing in the record to support the Department’s claim that it inquired about grandfather’s potential Indian ancestry.
A151743
- March 21, 2018
- Division: Four
- Attorney: Amy Grigsby
- Categories: Dependency, ICWA
On appeal from the order of the juvenile court terminating his parental rights, father argued that the juvenile court failed to comply with the inquiry and notice requirements of the ICWA. The Court concluded that the information about father’s Indian ancestry was sufficient to trigger a duty of further inquiry. The Court emphasized that the duty of ICWA inquiry was affirmative and continuing. Even though the Department had access to multiple members of the minor’s extended family who could have been questioned about father’s claim of Indian ancestry, the Department relied solely on its initial failure to obtain additional information for its conclusion that the ICWA did not apply in this case.
A151692
- February 28, 2018
- Division: One
- Attorney: Jessica Ronco
- Categories: Dependency, Disposition
Court of Appeal reversed the juvenile court’s dispositional order bypassing father for reunification services pursuant to WIC section 361.5, subdivision (b)(10) and (11). Application of these bypass provisions required a 2-part analysis: 1) that the parent failed to reunify with a sibling of the child, and 2) the parent subsequently failed to make reasonable efforts to correct the problems leading to the removal of the sibling. The Court agreed with father that there must be an overlap of issues between the current and prior dependency matters when applying section 361.5 (b)(10) and (11) to bypass a parent for reunification services.