For reprint rights or to purchase a copy of your Daily Journal photo, email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices or call 949-702-5390.

To buy more copies, call 866-531-1492 or email subscribe@dailyjournal.com
This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.
Subscribe to the Daily Journal for access to Daily Appellate Reports, Verdicts, Judicial Profiles and more...
This MCLE has expired.

Family,
Judges and Judiciary

Sep. 23, 2022

Divide & Prejudice

Which interest(s) – and hence which rule – will prevail? When our Supreme Court takes up the question, as it just did in Dezi C., No. S275578, the answer will doubtless be brimming with sense and sensibility.

2nd Appellate District, Division 2

Brian M. Hoffstadt

Associate Justice
California Court of Appeal

UCLA School of Law, 1995

See more...

The California courts are deeply divided on a narrow issue of juvenile dependency law that, when resolved, may also speak to the broader issue of when a trial court's misstep necessitates a "do over."

Here is the issue: Two parents neglect their child to a degree that prompts the juvenile court to declare the child a "dependent" of the court, to temporarily remove the child from the parents' custody, and to order the local social services a...

To continue reading, please subscribe.
For only $95 a month (the price of 2 article purchases)
Receive unlimited article access and full access to our archives,
Daily Appellate Report, award winning columns, and our
Verdicts and Settlements.
Or
$795 for an entire year!

Or access this article for $45
(Purchase provides 7-day access to this article. Printing, posting or downloading is not allowed.)

Already a subscriber?

Enewsletter Sign-up

Related Content

Native American Affairs

In re Isaiah W.

Parent may challenge finding of inapplicability of Indian Child Welfare Act in appeal from subsequent order even though she did not raise challenge in appeal from initial order.

Native American Affairs

In re K.R.

Juvenile court has a continuing duty to comply with notice requirements regarding a tribal heritage inquiry under the Indian Child Welfare Act

Dependency

In re Ezequiel G.

Courts should review Indian Child Welfare Act inquiry errors under a hybrid substantial evidence/abuse of discretion standard, and reverse only if the error was prejudicial.

Juveniles

In re Y.W.

Because the Department of Children and Family Services omitted information about a grandmother's tribal ancestry, notice to the Tribes was not adequate under the Indian Child Welfare Act.

Dependency

In re Rylei S.

Because the court records reflected an almost complete failure of the Department of Children and Family Services' statutory duty to further inquire as to possible Native American ancestry...

Juveniles

In re J.C.

Substantial evidence did not support juvenile court's finding that Indian Child Welfare Act did not apply because it failed to ensure that the Department of Children and Family Services f...

Juveniles

Modification: In re Antonio R.

The duty of ensuring that proper inquiry is made regarding the possibility of a child's Native American ancestry falls on both the Department of Children and Family Services and the juven...

Juveniles

In re A.R.

Social Service Agency's failure to conduct an initial inquiry into child's Native American heritage in child custody proceeding constitutes a miscarriage of justice regardless of parent's...

Juveniles

In re H.V.

Failure to make a proper first-step inquiry under the Indian Child Welfare Act was a prejudicial and reversible error even though the parent did not show that she could have obtained a mo...

Dependency

In re E.V.

Failure to conduct Indian Child Welfare Act inquiries is always a miscarriage of justice requiring reversal.

Juveniles

In re Christopher L.

Proceeding with a jurisdiction and disposition hearing without appointing counsel for child's parent nor for providing for his presence at the hearing was not the "miscarriage of justice"...

Juveniles

In re A.C.

Order terminating father's parental rights not prejudicial where father never claimed Indian ancestry at any point of process.

Administrative Agencies

Modification: In re Dezi C.

Rejecting the previously used rules in evaluating harmlessness in an Indian Child Welfare Act context, the court instead asked whether the record gave any reason to believe the children m...

Dependency

In re Kenneth D.

Welfare department and juvenile court's failure to inquire as to possible native ancestry was not prejudicial where the grandmother unequivocally identified all native heritage as being o...

Dependency

In re Y.M.

Father's failure to show prejudice resulting from welfare agency's failure to carry out its duty of initial inquiry under the Indian Child Welfare Act meant order terminating his parental...

Juveniles

In re Benjamin M.

An order terminating parental rights was reversed because the juvenile court and family services agency failed to comply with their duty of initial inquiry under the Indian Child Welfare ...



By using our website, you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy. You can learn more about how we use cookies by reviewing our Privacy Policy here.