Justia California Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

A.T. was born in May 2024 and tested positive for amphetamine and methamphetamine, as did her mother, M.T. The mother admitted to drug addiction and using methamphetamine throughout her pregnancy. The San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency (Agency) was notified, and A.T. was placed with a relative caregiver, Gloria T. The father, W.M., had a history of domestic violence and substance abuse issues, and had previously been involved in dependency proceedings for his other children, Y.M. and J.G.The Superior Court of San Diego County found that A.T. was a dependent child under section 300 of the Welfare and Institutions Code and ordered her removal from her mother's custody. The court also found that placing A.T. with her father would be detrimental to her well-being, citing his history of domestic violence, ongoing relationship with the mother, and lack of cooperation with the Agency.The father appealed, arguing that section 361, subdivision (d) should apply, which requires a higher standard of proof for removal, and that there was no clear and convincing evidence to support the finding of detriment. The Agency argued that section 361.2, subdivision (a) applied because the father did not have physical custody of A.T. at the time of disposition and sought to assume custody.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, concluded that section 361.2 applied because the father was the noncustodial parent seeking custody. The court found clear and convincing evidence supporting the juvenile court's finding that placing A.T. with the father would be detrimental to her safety and well-being. The court affirmed the juvenile court's dispositional order, maintaining A.T.'s placement with the relative caregiver and granting the father liberal unsupervised visitation. View "In re A.T." on Justia Law

Sarah Ann Miles and Jeffrey Gerstein entered into an oral traditional surrogacy agreement in which Miles agreed to conceive and carry a child using her ova and Gerstein's sperm, with the understanding that Gerstein would be the sole parent. The child, E., was born in December 2013, and both parties adhered to the terms of the agreement for seven years, with Gerstein acting as E.'s sole parent and Miles not assuming any parental role.The Superior Court of Sacramento County found that the oral surrogacy agreement was valid and enforceable, determining that Miles was not E.'s parent under the agreement. The court concluded that the parties had a clear understanding that Gerstein would be the sole parent and that Miles would not be involved in the child's upbringing. The court also found that it was not in E.'s best interest for Miles to enter her life as a parent.The California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court's judgment. The appellate court held that traditional surrogacy agreements do not need to be in writing to be enforceable under California law. The court found that the oral agreement between Miles and Gerstein was valid and that the parties' conduct over the years supported the existence of the agreement. The court also determined that the agreement did not violate public policy or constitutional principles, as Miles never intended to be E.'s parent and did not assume a parental role in E.'s life. The judgment was affirmed, and Miles was ordered to pay Gerstein's costs on appeal. View "Miles v. Gerstein" on Justia Law

Hub Alan Freeman and Rod Alan Freeman were domestic partners and then spouses for over 15 years before separating. After their marital dissolution trial, the family court ordered Hub to pay Rod $2,100 a month in permanent spousal support. The court also determined that the community had a 60.2 percent interest in a rental property that Hub had purchased prior to their domestic partnership. The court found Rod’s expert opinion on the rental property’s value more persuasive and used it to determine the property’s value.The Superior Court of Riverside County entered a status-only judgment dissolving the marriage and domestic partnership but reserved jurisdiction over other issues. The trial addressed the amount of spousal support and the value of the community’s interest in the rental property. The family court applied the relevant support factors under Family Code section 4320 and found that Rod had the need for spousal support. The court also found that the community had a 60.2 percent interest in the rental property based on the amount of principal paid and improvements made during the relationship.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the case. The court affirmed the family court’s order, finding no abuse of discretion in the spousal support award. The appellate court held that the family court properly considered the section 4320 factors and did not solely rely on the Xspouse software or the temporary spousal support order. The court also found that the family court correctly valued the rental property closer to the time of trial, as required by section 2552 of the Family Code. The appellate court rejected Hub’s due process claim, noting that he did not object to the time allocation during the trial. View "In re Marriage of Freeman" on Justia Law

A woman, Sarah Ann Miles, entered into an oral traditional surrogacy agreement with Jeffrey Gerstein, a single gay man, to conceive and bear a child using her ova and his sperm. The agreement stipulated that Gerstein would be the sole parent, and Miles would not assume any parental role. The child, E., was born in December 2013, and both parties adhered to the terms of the agreement for seven years, with Gerstein acting as the sole parent and Miles having limited, non-parental interaction with E.The Superior Court of Sacramento County reviewed the case when Miles filed a petition in May 2021 to establish her parental relationship with E., seeking joint custody and visitation. Gerstein opposed, asserting the surrogacy agreement. The trial court held an evidentiary hearing and found clear and convincing evidence of a valid oral surrogacy agreement, determining that Miles was not E.'s parent under the agreement and that it was not in E.'s best interest for Miles to assume a parental role.The California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, reviewed the case and affirmed the trial court's judgment. The appellate court held that the oral traditional surrogacy agreement was enforceable under California law, which does not require all surrogacy agreements to be in writing. The court found that the agreement did not lack a lawful object and that Miles's parentage was not established under the Uniform Parentage Act (UPA) due to the clear intention and conduct of the parties. The court also concluded that enforcing the agreement did not violate public policy or Miles's constitutional rights, as she never assumed a parental role in E.'s life. The judgment was affirmed, and Miles was ordered to pay Gerstein's costs on appeal. View "Miles v. Gernstein" on Justia Law

The case involves M.D., the mother of minor H.M., who appeals the termination of her parental rights by the Superior Court of Tuolumne County. The appeal centers on the alleged noncompliance with the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) by the Tuolumne County Department of Social Services. M.D. contends that the department failed to fulfill its duty of inquiry and adequately document its efforts regarding H.M.'s potential Native American ancestry.Initially, the department responded to a referral in April 2023, when both M.D. and newborn H.M. tested positive for drugs. H.M. was placed into protective custody. During the inquiry, M.D. reported she was adopted and unaware of her Native American ancestry, while the father mentioned possible Blackfeet tribe ancestry. The department sent notification letters to relatives, and some expressed interest in H.M.'s placement but did not confirm Native American ancestry.The Superior Court of Tuolumne County held several hearings, during which M.D. and the father were present. The court made findings that H.M. might be an Indian child and directed further inquiry. The department contacted the three federally recognized Cherokee tribes and the Blackfeet tribe. Two Cherokee tribes responded that H.M. was not eligible for membership, while the Cherokee Nation required additional information, which the department provided but received no further response.The Court of Appeal of the State of California, Fifth Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court found that the department and the juvenile court conducted adequate inquiries and documented their efforts sufficiently. The court held that the department's inquiry into H.M.'s potential Native American heritage was proper and that the ICWA did not apply. Consequently, the court affirmed the termination of M.D.'s parental rights. View "In re H.M." on Justia Law

K.T. filed a request for a domestic violence restraining order (DVRO) against her ex-partner, E.S., with whom she shares three daughters. K.T. alleged that E.S. had subjected her to physical and sexual abuse over several years, including incidents where the children were present. She also claimed that E.S. had abducted the children from Texas to California without her consent. K.T. sought to include the children as protected parties in the DVRO, citing their exposure to E.S.'s abusive behavior.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County granted K.T. a temporary restraining order (TRO) against E.S. but did not include the children as protected parties, citing a lack of imminent risk of harm to them. During the hearing on K.T.'s DVRO request, the court reviewed her declaration and testimony, which detailed the abuse and the children's exposure to it. The court granted the DVRO protecting K.T. but did not include the children, stating there was no credible evidence of physical or sexual abuse of the children.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, reviewed the case and found that the trial court had used the wrong legal standard by requiring evidence of direct abuse of the children. The appellate court held that the correct standard was "good cause" based on the totality of the circumstances, which includes the children's exposure to domestic violence. The appellate court found that K.T. had provided sufficient evidence of good cause to include the children as protected parties in the DVRO.The appellate court reversed the trial court's decision in part, directing it to modify the DVRO to include the children as protected parties. The court otherwise affirmed the trial court's order and awarded costs to K.T. View "K.T. v. E.S." on Justia Law

C.T. filed a petition in 2019 in San Francisco Superior Court seeking a domestic violence restraining order against K.W. and sole custody of their son, born in November 2018. The court issued a temporary restraining order granting C.T. sole custody and determined California as the child's home state. In 2022, the court granted C.T. a five-year restraining order and continued temporary custody orders. In 2024, C.T. requested to relocate to Denmark with the child, which the court granted, maintaining C.T.'s sole custody and setting a future hearing for final custody determinations.The San Francisco Superior Court found in August 2024 that neither the child, C.T., nor K.W. resided in California but retained jurisdiction over the ongoing custody case. C.T. challenged this decision, arguing that the court lost jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) because none of the parties resided in California.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Four, reviewed the case. The court concluded that the trial court retained jurisdiction to resolve the original custody and visitation issues despite the parties' relocation. The court emphasized that jurisdiction attaches at the commencement of the proceeding and is not lost due to subsequent relocations. The appellate court denied C.T.'s petition for a writ, affirming that the trial court had jurisdiction to make final custody and visitation determinations. View "C.T. v. Super. Ct." on Justia Law

Over a five-year period, Robert Michael Tafoya stalked and harassed E.R. in various ways. He frequently appeared at her workplace, left flowers on her car, followed her while shopping, made numerous Facebook posts claiming to be involved with her and the father of her children, and fraudulently applied for custody and visitation orders. Despite restraining orders, his behavior continued unabated, including attempts to pick up her children from school.Following a jury trial in the Superior Court of Riverside County, Tafoya was convicted of stalking, perjury, attempted child abduction, and filing false documents. He was sentenced to 25 years and eight months in prison. Tafoya appealed the convictions, arguing that his Facebook posts were protected by the First Amendment, there was insufficient evidence for the attempted child abduction conviction, and the perjury and false document convictions lacked false statements. He also appealed the restitution order, claiming the court used the wrong standard and lacked proper verification.The Court of Appeal of the State of California, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two, reviewed the case. The court held that Tafoya’s Facebook posts were not protected activity as they were part of a pattern of conduct that constituted a credible threat. The court found substantial evidence supporting the attempted child abduction conviction, noting that the visitation order was obtained by fraud and thus void. The court affirmed the convictions for stalking, attempted child abduction, and filing false documents. However, the court reversed the perjury conviction related to the restraining order (count 10) due to the lack of a false statement under penalty of perjury and remanded for resentencing. The restitution order was upheld, as the need for relocation expenses was justified by the record. View "People v. Tafoya" on Justia Law

In this case, the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) became involved with a family after law enforcement discovered child pornography in the parents' home. Both parents admitted to possessing child pornography, and the mother admitted to posting inappropriate images of their daughter, M.V., online. M.V. was subsequently placed with her paternal grandparents, and the juvenile court sustained allegations of sexual exploitation against both parents, declaring M.V. a dependent child and removing her from her parents' custody. The parents received reunification services until November 2020, and in December 2021, the juvenile court terminated their parental rights. However, this order was vacated on appeal, and the case was remanded for a supplemental bonding study and a new permanency planning hearing.On remand, a new expert conducted a bonding study, and the permanency planning hearing took place in June 2024. The court reviewed extensive documentary evidence, including reports on M.V.'s well-being, her relationship with her parents and grandparents, and her expressed wishes to be adopted by her grandparents. The expert, Dr. Gonzalez, concluded that M.V. had a secure attachment to both parents and that terminating the parental relationship could be detrimental to her. However, the court found that the parents had not proven the beneficial parental relationship exception, noting that the expert's opinions were based more on general psychological principles than on the specific facts of the case.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Eight, reviewed the case and affirmed the juvenile court's order terminating parental rights. The appellate court found that the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in rejecting the expert's opinions and that the evidence did not compel a finding in favor of the parents. The court also addressed and dismissed allegations of judicial bias and due process violations raised by the parents. View "In re M.V." on Justia Law

Thomas Armenta and Tiffini Pateras began their relationship in 2012 and had a child, M.A., in 2014. They separated in 2017 and entered a child custody and support agreement. Armenta, a Chumash descendant, works at the Chumash tribal office and earns $114,000 annually, plus $5,000 monthly from the Chumash tribe’s general welfare program. Pateras filed a petition for child support and attorney fees in 2023. The trial court ordered Armenta to pay $448 monthly for temporary child support and $2,000 in attorney fees. Subsequent hearings led to a final order for Armenta to pay $1,053 monthly in child support and $5,000 in need-based attorney fees.The trial court ruled that the $5,000 monthly payments Armenta receives from the Chumash tribe’s general welfare program should be considered as income for calculating child support. Armenta argued that these payments should be excluded as they are not subject to federal income taxation and claimed they were need-based public assistance. However, the court found no evidence that the payments were need-based or restricted to low-income individuals.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, affirmed the trial court’s decision. The court held that the payments from the Chumash tribe’s general welfare program are income for child support purposes, regardless of their tax status under federal law. The court emphasized that California’s child support statutes aim to ensure parents support their children according to their financial ability, and income is broadly defined to include various sources. The court also rejected Armenta’s claims regarding the need for an evidentiary hearing and the enforcement of a notice to appear, finding no procedural errors. The orders were affirmed, and costs on appeal were awarded to the respondents. View "Pateras v. Armenta" on Justia Law