Family Law

Recent Dependency Law Cases

Please share:

DEPENDENCY (current through 4/23/2023)
By:  John Nieman

In re L.J.

In re L.J.
3/23/23, CA 3 C096775
https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/C096775.PDF

Mother appealed termination of her parental right claiming the trial court violated her due process rights by not admitting an illegally obtained recording of a visit with her child. After determining that mother violated Penal Code §632, a misdemeanor to make recordings without consent, the court ruled that the evidence was also inadmissible under the same statute. The psychologist who performed the bonding study that the court relied upon to determine the existence and quality of the bond mother asserted should protect her parental rights reviewed the visit recordings and testified that the recordings were consistent with his opinion. Finally, the appellate court found that mother had a full opportunity to present evidence of the recorded events even without the recording itself.

In re Damian L. et al.

In re Damian L. et al.
4/11/23, CA 5: F083805
https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/F083805.PDF

Family Maintenance was ordered at the initial disposition hearing that was not done until about 8 months after the original detention of the minors. When a W&I §387 petition removed children from mother because she continued to use illegal substances, the County Counsel asserted that the time limits laid out in W&I §361.5 should apply to the initial detention, not the initial removal pursuant to granting the W&I §387 petition. The trial court did not agree and ordered continued reunification services to a date calculated from the W&I §387 petition removal. Social Services appealed and the appellate court found that the word “removal” used to describe circumstances prior to the removal by clear and convincing evidence pursuant to W&I §361 has the same meaning as that used in W&I §361.5, which sets out the time limits for reunification services.

In re Robert F.

In re Robert F.
4/12/23, CA 4/2: E080073
https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/E080073.PDF

This is an Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) case. Mother appealed termination of her parental rights, claiming the social services agency, DPSS’s, failed to inquire of extended family members of possible Native American heritage required under Welfare & Institutions Code (W&I) §224.2(b). This court follows an assertion from the concurring opinion in In re Adrian L. (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 342 that, since the child was taken into protective custody by a warrant issued pursuant to W&I §340 and not §306 (which does not require a warrant) as specified in §224.2(b), the inquiry mother claims was not followed was not required.

In re S.S.

In re S.S.
4/14/23, CA 2/8: B318794
https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B318794.PDF

This is an Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) case. Mother appealed termination of her parental rights, claiming the social services agency, DPSS’s, failed to inquire of paternal extended family members of possible Native American heritage required under Welfare & Institutions Code (W&I) §224.2(b). This court rules that the complete lack of inquiry of available paternal relatives left it with no choice but to reverse and remand conditionally to comply with the required inquiry. The majority opinion goes into an extensive and detailed description of the history of treatment of Native Americans that brought about the ICWA. There is a concurring opinion and a dissenting opinion.

In re L.C. et al.

In re L.C. et al.
4/18/23, CA 2/5: B322778
https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B322778.PDF

See summary under FAMILY LAW


Forgot Password

Enter the email associated with you account. You will then receive a link in your inbox to reset your password.

Personal Information

Select Section(s)

CLA Membership is $99 and includes one section. Additional sections are $99 each.

Payment