Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

C.D. (Mother) appeals from the trial court’s post-judgment order granting a request from G.D. (Father) that she enroll their minor daughters in public school. Mother contends the order must be vacated because, without a change in custody, Father has no decision-making authority regarding their daughters’ education.   The Second Appellate District agreed with Mother and vacated the order. The court explained that A parent with “sole legal custody” has “the right and the responsibility to make the decisions relating to the health, education, and welfare of a child.” Here, Father requested a say in his daughters’ education by asking the trial court to order Mother to enroll them in public school. But because Mother has sole legal custody of the girls, Father has no right or responsibility concerning their education. To obtain those, Father had to secure joint legal custody by showing a significant change in circumstances. The court explained that the trial court erred when it granted Father’s request for an order directing Mother to send their daughters to public school. Prior to issuing such an order, the trial court was required to find that Father demonstrated a change in circumstances warranting modification of its initial custody order. Not making that finding was an abuse of discretion. View "Marriage of C.D. & G.D." on Justia Law

A.R. (Father) and S.R. (Mother) appealed from the juvenile court’s orders terminating their parental rights to three of their children, under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26.1. Father’s sole claim, joined by Mother, is that because Stanislaus County Community Services Agency (agency) failed to conduct a proper, adequate, and duly diligent inquiry into whether the children are or may be Indian children, the juvenile court erred when it found that the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA) did not apply.   The Fifth Appellate District conditionally reversed the juvenile court’s finding that ICWA does not apply. The court explained that Section 224.2, subdivision (b), imposes on the county welfare department a broad duty to inquire whether a child placed into the temporary custody of the county under section 306 is or may be an Indian child. The court explained that at issue is whether a child taken into protective custody by warrant under section 340, subdivision (a) or (b) falls within the ambit of section 306, subdivision (a)(1). The court explained that based on the plain language of the statutes, it agrees with Delila D. that the answer is yes and, therefore, the inquiry mandated under section 224.2, subdivision (b), applies. The court further concluded that the juvenile court erred in finding the agency conducted a proper, adequate, and duly diligent inquiry and that the error is prejudicial, which necessitates a conditional reversal of the court’s finding that ICWA does not apply and a limited remand so that an inquiry that comports with section 224.2, subdivision (b), may be conducted. View "In re Jerry R." on Justia Law

G.D. (Father) appealed the judgment approving the dissolution of his marriage to C.D. (Mother), granting her full custody of their minor daughters and barring all visitation. Father contends the custody and visitation orders attached to the judgment should be vacated. Father contends the custody and visitation orders should be vacated because there was insufficient evidence that he sexually abused F.D. and S.D. To him, only an evaluation conducted pursuant to section 3118 could provide the evidentiary basis necessary to permit the trial court to find that he abused his daughters.   The Second Appellate District affirmed. The court explained that There are several problems with Father’s contentions. First, the trial court’s decision not to order a section 3118 evaluation was made, at least in part, at Father’s behest. Second, even if Father had not invited any error, he could not show prejudice. Third, no section 3118 evaluation was required here. If a trial court appoints a child custody evaluator and “determines that there is a serious allegation of child sexual abuse,” it must order a section 3118 evaluation. The court explained that the trial court below did not determine there had been a serious allegation of child sexual abuse. It was thus not required to order a section 3118 evaluation. Fourth, Section 3118 requires a trial court to order an evaluation when it appoints a child custody evaluator and determines there has been a serious allegation of child sexual abuse. But section 3118 also grants a court the discretion to order an evaluation when abuse allegations arise in other contexts. View "Marriage of C.D. & G.D." on Justia Law

In December 2019, the Alameda County Social Services Agency filed a petition (Welfare and Institutions Code 300(b)(1) and (j)) regarding infant V.C., with allegations that his mother tested positive for methamphetamine at V.C.’s birth, resulting in V.C. experiencing withdrawal symptoms. A social worker had spoken with both parents, who each “denied any Native American ancestry.” Both parents completed and filed “Parental Notification of Indian Status” forms, checking the box: “I have no Indian ancestry as far as I know,” under penalty of perjury.In March 2020, the juvenile court found the allegations true, declared the children dependents, removed them from parental custody, and ordered reunification services, concluding that each child “is not an Indian child and no further notice is required under” the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) (25 U.S.C. 1901). In February 2021, the court terminated reunification services, set a section 366.26 hearing, and again concluded that ICWA did not apply. On remand for a new hearing concerning the beneficial relationship exception, the juvenile court again terminated parental rights, found “ICWA does not apply,” and identified adoption as the children’s permanent plan.The court of appeal conditionally reversed. The agency failed to comply with ICWA by not asking available extended family members about possible Indian ancestry. View "In re V.C." on Justia Law

Defendant-Mother appealed the juvenile court’s order denying her post-permanency Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 petition that asked the court to grant her reunification services with her thirteen-year-old son N.F. The juvenile court terminated its dependency jurisdiction over N.F. in January 2021 after appointing paternal uncle as his legal guardian. Mother does not contest the merits of the court’s denial of her section 388 petition. Rather, she argued the juvenile court’s legal guardianship order must be reversed because the court and the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (Department) did not comply with their initial inquiry duties under the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA) and related California law.The Second Appellate District affirmed. The court explained that Mother had the right to appeal from the court’s legal guardianship order, including the court’s implicit finding it continued to have no reason to know N.F. was an Indian child and the Department had satisfied its duty of ICWA inquiry. However, the time to so do expired many months ago. The court explained that Mother cannot now use her appeal from her post-permanency section 388 petition to challenge the legal guardianship order and findings made at the section 366.26 hearing—including the finding that ICWA did not apply. Further, the court explained that as the juvenile court did not vacate its order terminating its dependency jurisdiction over N.F. when it heard Mother’s section 388 petition—and a section 300 petition was not being filed on N.F.’s behalf—the court’s and the Department’s continuing duty of inquiry under section 224.2 was not implicated. View "In re N.F." on Justia Law

A.R. (Father) appealed the juvenile court’s dispositional order adjudging his son a dependent of the court and removing the child from his custody. The court also ordered reunification services for Father. Father’s one-year-old son, Andres R., came to DPSS’s attention in May 2022, when D.P. (Mother) called law enforcement to report domestic violence. Months later, the child was deemed a dependent of the court based on a social worker's findings of the child's living environment and interviews with his siblings and his mother. On appeal, Father challenged the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the court’s jurisdictional finding and the removal order. He also argued that the Riverside County Department of Public Social Services (DPSS) failed to comply with state law implementing the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA) . Finding no reversible error, the Court of Appeal affirmed. View "In re Andres R." on Justia Law

Appellant M.F. and her husband, J.F., were the paternal grandparents (PGPs) of R.F. and B.F. In 2021, the juvenile court terminated parental rights to the children and selected adoption as the children’s permanent plans. In Welf. & Inst. Code § 366.26 reports for each child, respondent Riverside County Department of Public Social Services (DPSS) recommended that the court designate the PGPs as the children’s “prospective adoptive parents” (PAPs). But at a hearing for B.F., counsel raised a concern about J.F.’s alcohol abuse; J.F. later tested positive for methamphetamines and amphetamines. In March 2022, DPSS removed the children from the PGPs’ home on an emergency basis. DPSS then filed a Judicial Council form JV-324 for each child, stating that the removals were “due to methamphetamine used by [J.F].” Together with the notice forms (JV-324), DPSS filed a form JV-326 for each child, stating that M.F. was given notice of the removals “orally, in person” on March 11. The proofs of notice (forms JV-326) did not show that M.F. was given: (1) copies of the notices of emergency removal DPSS filed on March 11; (2) blank copies of forms JV-325 (objection to removal); or (3) blank copies of forms JV- 321 (request for prospective adoptive parent designation). M.F. went to the courthouse to ask whether she could “do anything,” and she was told she could file an objection to removal on form JV-325. On March 25, M.F. filed a form JV-325 for each child, requesting a hearing on the removals, and claiming the children would suffer harm the longer they were separated from M.F.’s family. The juvenile court never set a hearing on the removals. On September 1, 2022, M.F., through an attorney, filed a section 388 petition for each child, asking the court to return the children to her care and claiming she was never notified of her right to file objections to, and request a hearing on, the removals.The court denied the petitions, without a hearing, on grounds: (1) M.F. was provided with notice of the removals on March 11; (2) thus, M.F.’s objections were untimely filed; and (3) a hearing on the removals was discretionary, not mandatory, pursuant to section 366.26(n)(3). M.F. appealed. The Court of Appeal reversed and remanded with orders to the juvenile court to hold a noticed hearing on the children’s March 11, 2022 removals. View "In re R.F." on Justia Law

A woman sought a domestic violence restraining order (DVRO) against her estranged husband. The trial court denied her petition while indicating that her allegations of a pattern of control and isolation by limiting her access to money, communication, and transportation did not fall within the statutory definition of domestic violence or abuse. The Court of Appeal found that under the law, attempts to control, regulate, and monitor a spouse’s finances, economic resources, movements, and access to communications are abuse. The Court therefore reversed the order denying the restraining order and remanded for a new hearing on whether a restraining order was appropriate. The trial court did not address the woman's request for spousal support, and the Court ordered that considered on remand as well. View "Hatley v. Southard" on Justia Law

In 2019, the Coles entered a stipulation requiring Scott to pay Kikianne child support of $7,537 per month for their two minor children plus bonus child support in accordance with a bonus wages report table, capped by Scott’s gross employment earnings of $2 million per year. Scott stopped making payments in April 2020 without Kikianne’s stipulation or court order and requested an order modifying his 2020 child support obligations. As the sole shareholder and director of his law firm, Scott alleged that his firm encountered severe economic challenges due to the COVID-19 pandemic and that he had stopped taking a salary to keep his business afloat. Kikianne contended that Scott maintained assets, income, and access to funds in excess of $20 million and that he essentially failed to disclose all available income to pay child support.After a hearing, the court indicated it found Scott’s testimony “largely unbelievable” concerning his personal finances and transactions, denied Scott’s modification request, and ordered him to pay $90,444--the entire amount of child support due in 2020. The court also ordered Scott to pay Kikianne’s attorney fees ($123,909), finding that the awarded sum “does not impose an unreasonable burden.” The court of appeal affirmed. It was Scott’s burden to prove his circumstances had so changed that he lacked the ability and opportunity to meet his child support obligations. He did not do so. View "Marriage of Cole" on Justia Law

Jennie requested that Rocky pay $45,000 in attorney fees she was incurring in response to Rocky’s appeals from their judgment of dissolution and from post-judgment efforts to enforce previous orders requiring him to pay $15,000 toward Jennie’s attorney fees and divide his 401(k) plan, with which Rocky had not complied. Jennie sought $45,000. Jennie declared that she had been out of work since March 2020 because of the pandemic, her unemployment benefits had been exhausted, and she was caring for the couple’s two children; her current income came from trust distributions, at the discretion of the trustee. Rocky, an attorney, responded that he was currently unemployed and had no income or assets to pay any portion of Jennie’s fees. Each submitted extensive evidence and disputed each other’s claims.The court of appeal affirmed a $25,000 award to Jennie for need-based attorney fees (Family Code 2030), rejecting Rocky’s arguments that the trial court erred in denying him an evidentiary hearing and that there is no evidence that he can comply with the order. The court declined to dismiss the appeal under the disentitlement doctrine. The trial court made explicit findings that Rocky’s income in 2020 was considerably higher than Jennie’s; her expenses exceeded her income; and Rocky had legal representation without paying attorney fees, while Jennie did not. The award complied with the statute and is supported by substantial evidence. View "Marriage of Hearn" on Justia Law