Family Law Section

This case involves the standing of an alleged father. Alleged father appealed the trial court’s exit order that his visits be monitored. Appellant was granted alleged father status but never raised his status to legal/biological or presumed. Alleged fathers are granted party-like status to allow them an opportunity to elevate their parentage status. Since father never did -and so never achieved actual party status- he had no standing to appeal the visitation order. Appeal dismissed for lack of standing. Read more

AB 2024 – Domestic Violence Restraining Orders The vast majority of ex parte DVROs are sought without assistance of counsel.  Court clerks sometimes refuse to accept forms because of missing information or other errors on any one of the required forms. This creates a delay in getting the request to the judicial officer who has the power to grant or deny the protective order.  This bill amends Family Code section 6300 so that a clerk may not reject an ex parte DVRO request if submitted Read more

In this case, the Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal from a minute order that dismissed the trial court case because that minute order was not appealable. A separate judgment was required. The Court of Appeal did, however, indicate that they would hear the appeal once the judgment was entered. It noted that parties “and attorneys deserve clarity when it comes to entry of judgment” because a “timely notice of appeal is…a ‘jurisdictional’ prerequisite for litigants and the date of entry of judgment must be known to calculate the deadline.” Read more

AB 2024 – Domestic Violence Restraining Orders The vast majority of ex parte DVROs are sought without assistance of counsel.  Court clerks sometimes refuse to accept forms because of missing information or other errors on any one of the required forms. This creates a delay in getting the request to the judicial officer who has the power to grant or deny Read more

During discovery, defendants served Katayama with 20 Requests for Admission (RFAs) in April 2020. Katayama failed to respond within the statutory deadline. Defendants then moved to have the RFAs deemed admitted under Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280(b). Read more

DEPENDENCY (current through 9/21/2024)By:  John NiemanThe precise holdings in a given case are bolded. Auther’s note is italicized. In re Kenneth D. In re Kenneth D.8/19/24, C S276649https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S276649.PDF This is the first of 2 long-awaited CA Supreme Court decisions that resolve issues related to the adjudication of cases involving the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). This case answers the question of the propriety of using post judgment evidence vis Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) §909 to decide the merits of… Read more

FAMILY LAW (Through 9/22/2024)By:  Andrew Botros, CFLS, CALSThe precise holdings in a given case are bolded. Auther’s note is italicized. Cardona v. Soto Cardona v. Soto9/17/2024 CA 1/1: A167089 – P.J. Humeshttps://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/A167089.PDF In this case, the Court of Appeal reversed a DVRO issued against Father in favor of Mother, which also protected the parties’ 12-year-old daughter. The DVRO arose from an incident where Father, allegedly intoxicated, physically assaulted his current wife in the presence of his daughter. When the daughter… Read more

DEPENDENCY (current through 8/18/2024)By:  John NiemanThe precise holdings in a given case are bolded. Auther’s note is italicized. In re A.P., et al In re A.P., et al7/26/24, CA 2/1 B327857https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B327857.PDF Mother appeals denial of her request for a restraining order (RO) against the father. At the time of the trial court’s decision, father had recently committed multiple acts of domestic violence against the mother. The trial court denied issuing an RO because the parents no longer lived together. In… Read more

FAMILY LAW (Through 8/20/2024)By:  Andrew Botros, CFLS, CALSThe precise holdings in a given case are bolded. Auther’s note is italicized. Bijan Boutiques, LLC v. Rosamari Isong Bijan Boutiques, LLC v. Rosamari Isong8/13/2024 CA 4/3: G063288 – P.J. Goethalshttps://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/G063288.PDF In this appeal, Bijan Boutiques, LLC (“Bijan”) challenges the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Rosamari Isong, as part of Bijan’s effort to enforce a judgment against Isong’s former husband, Richard Milam Akubiro. Bijan sought to void the property… Read more

Recent Dependency Law Cases Read more