Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

Without holding a hearing, the juvenile court denied two requests by a mother (Karen) to modify an order denying her services to reunify with her three-year-old son and seven-month-old daughter, who had 13 fractures. Later, after holding a hearing, the court terminated her parental rights. The appeals court affirmed, holding that the failure to hold a hearing on the modification requests did not amount to reversible error. On the first request, Karen failed to allege a prima facie case. On the second request, Karen was given an opportunity to be heard, and the court made findings negating the appropriateness of reunification services. Her parental rights were properly terminated because substantial evidence supports showed that the potential benefit to the children from a continuing relationship with mother was outweighed by the benefits of adoption. View "In re G.B." on Justia Law

Tonna and Nevarez were in a dating relationship for five years. They lived together from 2008 to 2010. Following their 2011 breakup, Tonna continued to try to persuade Nevarez to get back together with him, and went Nevarez’s workplace, a Safeway supermarket, almost daily. Nevarez sometimes responded to his communications and sometimes met with Tonna. Nevarez claims that at one point, Tonna pushed Nevarez against a wall and tried to take her clothes off; another time, he grabbed her arm. Tonna contacted Nevarez’s mother. Nevarez obtained a work transfer and changed her phone number before seeking a restraining order under the Domestic Violence Prevention Act, Fam. Code, 6200. The restraining order contained personal conduct orders and stay-away orders Tonna claimed that there was insufficient evidence that he committed “abuse” and insufficient evidence that Nevarez feared future abuse. The appeals court affirmed.View "Nevarez v. Tonna" on Justia Law

Pangilinan separated from her husband, who lives in the Philippines, in 2006 when she moved to the U.S. She began a relationship with Palisoc in February 2008. H. was born in November 2008. Pangilinan’s husband’s name was listed on H.’s birth certificate and on baptism invitations as H.’s father. Palisoc had a relationship with H. until the end of Palisoc’s relationship with Pangilinan in July 2011, but never publicly acknowledged that H. was his son. In August 2011, Pangilinan sought a declaration that Palisoc was H.’s father and sought child support. The court found that Family Code section 7540’s conclusive presumption did not apply because Pangilinan and her husband were not cohabiting when H. was conceived or born, but refused to order genetic testing. Reasoning that Pangilinan’s action was an action to establish the nonexistence of a parent-child relationship between her husband and H. under former section 7630, subdivision (a)(2), the court concluded that her action was untimely and declared her husband the father. The appeals court reversed, finding that the trial court prejudicially erred in finding Pangilinan’s petition to be untimely and in failing to entertain her request for genetic testing. View "Pangilinan v. Palisoc" on Justia Law