Case # | Name | Category | Court | Judge | Published |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
E077791
|
In re K.T.
In order to ensure that the Indian Child Welfare Act is not applicable, courts and agencies have a duty to actively investigate possible Native American ancestry when there is a suggestion of the child's possible tribal membership. |
Juveniles |
|
M. Slough | Mar. 28, 2022 |
B314389
|
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 juvenile courts, not the parents or parents' families. |
Juveniles |
|
G. Feuer | Mar. 21, 2022 |
B313020
|
In re J.Y.
The juvenile court abused its discretion by setting a hearing to place minor with relatives after the reunification period ended because there was no evidence that removal was necessary or in the child's best interest. |
Juveniles |
|
E. Grimes | Mar. 21, 2022 |
B314389
|
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 juvenile courts, not the parents or parents' families. |
Juveniles |
|
G. Feuer | Mar. 18, 2022 |
C093132
|
In re D.P.
The juvenile court's determination that the parental-benefit exception did not apply was erroneous where evidence supported the exception and there was no analysis explaining why the evidence was not credible. |
Juveniles |
|
J. Renner | Mar. 14, 2022 |
B312391
|
In re A.C.
The Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services' failure to ask readily available extended family members about minor's potential Indian ancestry was prejudicial. |
Juveniles |
|
H. Bendix | Mar. 8, 2022 |
B313574
|
In re Mia M.
The Department of Children and Family Services failed to make reasonable efforts to inform a parent of a disposition hearing because it failed to investigate the most likely avenues for finding the parent. |
Juveniles |
|
C. Moor | Mar. 3, 2022 |
B314043
|
In re S.S.
A failure to inquire with a child's grandmother regarding Native American ancestry was a harmless error because the grandmother was involved in the proceedings and likely would have presented any evidence of such ancestry herself. |
Juveniles |
|
F. Rothschild | Feb. 28, 2022 |
B314783
|
In re Darian R.
While Department of Children and Family Services's failure to interview extended family members about their Native American ancestry was an error, the error was not prejudicial when the record shows no prejudice from that failure. |
Juveniles |
|
H. Bendix | Feb. 28, 2022 |
B312153
|
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 more favorable result. |
Juveniles |
|
D. Kim | Feb. 23, 2022 |
H049130
|
In re J.B.
Juvenile court's post-dispositional dismissal under Welfare and Institutions Code Section 782, which would allow for the commitment of the juvenile, was merited given the circumstances of the case. |
Juveniles |
|
P. Bamattre-Manoukian | Feb. 23, 2022 |
B313191
|
In re Katherine J.
The beneficial relationship exception did not apply because the father's unresolved substance abuse and violence issues undermined the relationship. |
Juveniles |
|
C. Crandall | Feb. 22, 2022 |
B310601
|
In re Abigail L.
A juvenile court order placing a child in another home did not render a request for de facto parent status from her previous custodian moot. |
Juveniles |
|
J. Segal | Feb. 16, 2022 |
A161171
|
In re Cesar G.
Juvenile courts cannot order wards to pay for DUI programs that are required as a condition of probation. |
Juveniles |
|
M. Miller | Feb. 14, 2022 |
A161063
|
In re Leon E.
The court reversed orders terminating dependency jurisdiction even though the nonminor dependent failed to comply with eligibility requirements for extended foster care benefits. |
Juveniles |
|
C. Fujisaki | Jan. 25, 2022 |
E077196
|
Modification: In re L.A.-O.
Application of the parental-benefit exception requires specificity evidencing a substantial, positive, emotional attachment to the parent, not just ambiguous statements regarding a "parental role." |
Juveniles |
|
M. Ramirez | Jan. 21, 2022 |
H048761
|
In re A.L.
The juvenile court properly considered whether the termination of parental rights would be detrimental to the child. |
Juveniles |
|
P. Bamattre-Manoukian | Jan. 20, 2022 |
A162116
|
In re Eli B.
A juvenile court did not err in terminating a mother's parental rights because the beneficial relationship exception did not apply. |
Juveniles |
|
T. Stewart | Jan. 19, 2022 |
B311135
|
In re Malik T.
A juvenile court erred in concluding that it lacked the authority to order additional reunification services. |
Juveniles |
|
D. Perluss | Jan. 19, 2022 |
C092928
|
In re A.V.
Juvenile court denied mother's due process right to be heard at jurisdictional hearing when it waived her parental rights after mother did not attend hearing due to sick child during the pandemic. |
Juveniles |
|
C. Blease | Jan. 13, 2022 |
A161118
|
Modification: In re L.J.
A juvenile's punishment on a reckless evasion of police count was stayed because it was based on the same indivisible course of conduct, with the same intent and objective, as the assault counts. |
Juveniles |
|
T. Brown | Jan. 4, 2022 |
E077196
|
In re L.A.-O.
Application of the parental-benefit exception requires specificity evidencing a substantial, positive, emotional attachment to the parent, not just ambiguous statements regarding a "parental role." |
Juveniles |
|
M. Ramirez | Dec. 29, 2021 |
B309567
|
In re Emily L.
Juvenile court erred in finding it had jurisdiction when circumstances had improved dramatically during a 13-month delay between filing the petition and the jurisdictional and disposition hearing. |
Juveniles |
|
M. Stratton | Dec. 22, 2021 |
B305551
|
Doe v. Lawndale Elementary School Dist.
The Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act requires an objective standard but does not require reporting of facts the mandated reporter did not know but should have discovered. |
Juveniles |
|
J. Segal | Dec. 2, 2021 |
A161118
|
In re L.J.
A juvenile's punishment on a reckless evasion of police count was stayed because it was based on the same indivisible course of conduct, with the same intent and objective, as the assault counts. |
Juveniles |
|
T. Brown | Dec. 2, 2021 |
B307988
|
In re S.G.
Where juvenile court terminated jurisdiction, controversy was not moot because an appellate court's order would create the limited jurisdiction needed to afford effective relief. |
Juveniles |
|
F. Rothschild | Nov. 17, 2021 |
E076526
|
In re R.F.
An order terminating dependency jurisdiction was reversed because the father did not receive proper notice and was not given an opportunity to be heard. |
Juveniles |
|
C. Codrington | Nov. 12, 2021 |
A162937
|
D.C. v. Superior Court (People)
When deciding which jurisdiction a juvenile offender should be charged in, judges may consider delinquent conduct which occurred after the alleged offense. |
Juveniles |
|
M. Simons | Nov. 11, 2021 |
B311213
|
In re Josiah T.
Termination of parental rights was reversed when the Department of Children and Family Services failed to fulfill its inquiry and disclosure duties under the Indian Child Welfare Act. |
Juveniles |
|
M. Stratton | Nov. 10, 2021 |
B311250
|
In re Solomon B.
An order terminating a nonoffending noncustodial mother's parental rights was reversed because substantial evidence did not support the juvenile court's detriment finding. |
Juveniles |
|
C. Crandall | Nov. 2, 2021 |