Mother appealed from the denial of her section 388 petition for modification and the termination of her parental rights. The Court of Appeal reversed the juvenile court’s order terminating mother’s parental rights and identifying adoption with paternal grandparents in Denmark as the permanent plan for the minor. The Court agreed with mother that she had established the applicability of the beneficial-relationship exception under WIC 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i). The Court found that due to the undisputed strong bond between mother and the minor, an exceptional situation existed which overcame the Legislature’s preference for adoption. The Court stated that in light of its conclusion that the juvenile court erred in terminating mother’s parental rights, it would be appropriate to remand the entire case so the court could take into consideration any new evidence or changed circumstances so that it may consider the current best interests of the minor.
Panel Victories are updated monthly.
A150346
- September 7, 2017
- Division: One
- Attorney: Jacob Olson
- Categories: Dependency, Permanency Planning (Section 366.26)
A147219
- July 17, 2017
- Division: Three
- Attorney: Mark D. Johnson
- Categories: Criminal, Fines, Fees, and Victim Restitution
Court of Appeal reversed order for defendant to pay $250 for defense costs for representation. The defendant himself objected to the fee and Court found that the record was insufficient to support a finding of ability to pay where the defendant was sentenced to two years in prison.
A145857
- July 5, 2017
- Division: Four
- Attorney: Donald Bergerson, Peggy Headley
- Categories: Criminal, Fourth Amendment, Pleading and Proof
Court of Appeal reversed misdemeanor conviction for recent use of a controlled substance where it was barred by one year statute of limitations and reversed all fines and fees associated with that count.
A148171
- February 2, 2017
- Attorney: Mara Bernstein
- Categories: Dependency, ICWA, Review Hearings
[Published Decision – 9 Cal.App.5th 339] Father appealed from the juvenile court’s findings at the six-month review hearing. The Court of Appeal agreed stating father’s out-of-state location and lack of participation did not excuse the Department’s failure to provide reasonable services. In addition, the Department failed to make the required active efforts under the ICWA to prevent the breakup of the Indian family.
A159539
- Division: One
- Attorney: Candace Hale
- Categories: Criminal, Sentencing
The Court of Appeal remanded for resentencing due to the recent statutory amendment to Penal Code section 654, which now affords trial courts the discretion to choose the count on which to impose punishment (instead of having to choose the one that provided for the longest potential term of imprisonment). The court further found that appellant’s kidnapping to commit rape and forcible rape punish the same act and, therefore, stayed the execution of sentence for the former offense.