Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

Mother appealed a detention order based on a subsequent dependency petition filed under Welfare and Institutions Code section 342. The Court of Appeal granted DCFS's motion to dismiss the appeal, because the detention order based on a section 342 petition is interlocutory and not appealable. Therefore, the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain mother's appeal of the detention order entered prior to disposition. View "In re B.P." on Justia Law

The Court of Appeal affirmed the juvenile court's order selecting adoption as the permanent plan for mother's daughter. The court held that mother's challenge to the juvenile court's order of adoption is waived; the trial court was under no obligation sua sponte to inquire whether M.W. (the mother of Samantha's godmother) had been advised of and rejected the option of guardianship in favor of adoption; and where, as here, all statutory requirements to terminate parental rights have been met, the non-relative prospective adoptive parent has been clear and consistent in her willingness and desire to adopt the child, and the court has found the adoptive parent suitable and the child thriving in the adoptive parent's care and custody, the court saw no reason whatsoever to derail this adoption. View "In re Samantha H." on Justia Law

K.L. (mother) and J.P. (father) had three young children together as well as an infant son named E. Mother tested positive for amphetamine at a prenatal visit for E., and when the child was born a few months later, he tested positive for amphetamine and marijuana. At the jurisdiction and disposition hearing, the juvenile court declared all four children dependents and removed them from the parents’ care. Mother appealed, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence used to support the removal order. She argued there was insufficient evidence E.’s siblings were at risk of harm, as well as insufficient evidence all of the children could not live safely with father, with her out of the home. After review, the Court of Appeal concluded substantial evidence supported the challenged findings and orders, and therefore affirmed. View "In re E.E." on Justia Law

The Court of Appeal reversed the dependency court's order concerning father's baby daughter. The court held that the juvenile court abused its discretion in ordering father to complete a parenting education program because substantial evidence did not support a finding that, in order to protect his daughter, he needed to participate in a parenting course. In this case, the record contained uncontroverted evidence that after the baby was placed with father at the detention hearing, he provided appropriate care for her; his home was safe and had the necessary baby supplies; he was meeting the baby's needs and had a nurturing and healthy relationship with her; and father had completed a formal parenting program in 2015. View "In re K.T." on Justia Law

The Court of Appeal affirmed the family court's division of marital property and rejected father's four claims of error. The court deferred to the family court's credibility call in rejecting two of father's witnesses as unreliable, and held that substantial evidence supported the family court's conclusion that a $171,099 obligation remained on the Hacienda Heights home, which sum it subtracted from the home's value. The court upheld the family court's sanction against father for his omission of another property in his preliminary and final declarations of disclosure. The court held that the family court did not abuse its discretion in interpreting a 2008 order directing father to sell a third property. Finally, the court held that substantial evidence supported the family court's judgment regarding father's Jeep, tools, all-terrain vehicle, and watch. View "Gutierrez v. Gutierrez" on Justia Law

Mary, then 18 months old, was removed from her parents in 2016, due to both parents’ drug abuse, chronic unemployment, homelessness, and neglect of their children. Aurora was eight months old when she was removed. A brother, age four, was freed for adoption in 2018. Since December 2017, the girls have lived in the concurrent foster-adoptive home of Shawn, a woman in her forties who formerly worked in early childhood development but now stays at home with the children. Shawn lives with her partner and their 16-year-old daughter. Shawn wanted to adopt the girls. The parents engaged in reunification services half-heartedly but participated regularly in visitation. The court terminated reunification services. The maternal grandmother petitioned to adopt Mary; her petition was denied because Mary was in a concurrent foster-adoptive home.The section 366.26 report recommended termination of parental rights and a permanent plan of adoption. The social worker had observed the girls' connection to their foster-adoptive family and described the girls as generally healthy but having special needs. The parents testified in support of their claim of a beneficial parental relationship. The court selected adoption as the permanent plan and terminated both parents’ rights in the children. The court of appeal affirmed, rejecting an argument that the children have too many special needs to be generally adoptable and should not have been deemed specifically adoptable because the section 366.26 report failed to contain all the statutorily required detail about the prospective adoptive mother and failed to report on her longtime partner who resides with her. View "In re Mary C." on Justia Law

Appellant S.O. was subject to dual status supervision as both a dependent and a ward of the court; San Bernardino County Children and Family Services (CFS) was designated as the lead agency.In 2019, the juvenile court dismissed the dependency proceedings, effectively modifying dual status jurisdiction to single status jurisdiction. S.O. appealed, contending the court abused its discretion in modifying jurisdiction by failing to obtain a “section 241.1 dual status report addressing the advisability of a modification to single jurisdiction under” Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 and, thus, failing to make “a reasoned determination” of his best interests. CFS argued “dismissal was warranted under section 241.1(d) and (e),” “dual status was no longer authorized,” and implicit findings supported dismissal of the section 300 dependency petition. After review, the Court of Appeal concurred with CFS, rejected S.O.’s contentions and affirmed. View "In re S.O." on Justia Law

Under California law, the donor's intent controls the disposition of his or her gametic material upon death. Plaintiff appealed the trial court's judgment sustaining demurrers to her causes of action alleged against defendants. After plaintiff's husband entered into an irreversible coma, she arranged to extract his sperm in hopes of one day conceiving a child with it. Plaintiff stored the sperm in a tissue bank that ultimately came under the control of defendants, and, ten years later, when she requested the sperm, defendants disclosed that they could not locate it. Plaintiff filed suit, alleging contract and tort claims based on the loss of her ability to have a child biologically related to her deceased husband.The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that the complaint failed to adequately plead facts supporting tort damages. In this case, plaintiff's tort causes of action are all premised on the loss of her ability to conceive with her deceased husband's sperm. However, the court held that the complaint failed to allege facts establishing that plaintiff was legally entitled to use her husband's sperm to conceive a child after he died. In this case, plaintiff's status as his spouse did not entitle her to conceive with his sperm; absent an affirmative showing that the husband intended to allow plaintiff to conceive with his sperm, plaintiff was not entitled to do so; and thus the complaint failed to allege that it was the husband's intent that his sperm be used for posthumous conception. Finally, the court held that plaintiff cannot recover emotional distress damages on her breach of contract cause of action. View "Robertson v. Saadat" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeal affirmed the juvenile court's jurisdictional findings over daughter and termination of the case with a juvenile custody order. The court held that substantial evidence supported the juvenile court's findings. In this case, the confluence of five factors supported the juvenile court's finding of a risk of serious emotional damage to daughter: violence, systematic verbal abuse, racism, impulsivity, and lack of insight. The court concluded that this combination created substantial evidence that daughter suffered severe anxiety, which in turn was evidence of a substantial risk daughter would suffer serious emotional damage. Finally, the court held that the juvenile court did not err by terminating jurisdiction and that the juvenile court's order did not unreasonably restrict the family court's power to modify custody or visitation. View "In re D.B." on Justia Law

The Court of Appeal affirmed dispositional orders designating the children dependents of the court. The court held that, although the "follow all recommendations" language in the case plan failed to satisfy Welfare and Institutions Code section 1650.1, subdivision (g)(2), the inclusion of the broad language in the case plan was harmless. Furthermore, the court found no Indian Child Welfare Act violation. In this case, mother's claim that she "may have Indian ancestry" was insufficient to trigger the Act's notice requirements, and the agency did not satisfy its duty of inquiry. View "In re M.R." on Justia Law