Justia California Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

In a case heard by the Court of Appeal of the State of California, First Appellate District, Division Four, the appellant, a mother (La.B.), challenged the juvenile court's decision to terminate her parental rights. The mother claimed the court failed to adequately inquire into her child's (L.B.'s) potential Native American ancestry as required by the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). Despite the mother's indication on a form that she might be a member of a federally recognized tribe of unknown name and location, no extended family members were asked about the child's potential Native American ancestry.The appellate court agreed with the mother's contention, finding the inquiry into the child's ancestry inadequate and thus, an abuse of discretion. The court noted that the inquiry was legally required to include extended family members, regardless of how the child was initially removed from their home. The trial court had failed to adhere to this requirement despite the availability of several family members who could have provided relevant information.The appellate court conditionally reversed the judgement and instructed the juvenile court to order the Social Services Agency to complete the initial ICWA inquiry, including inquiries required under section 224.2, subdivision (b). Depending on the results of the inquiry, the court should proceed in accordance with ICWA and related California law. If no evidence of the child's Native American heritage is found, the juvenile court should immediately reinstate the judgement. View "In re L.B." on Justia Law

In this California appellate case, the key issue was whether non-monetary benefits, specifically room and board, constituted "remuneration" within the meaning of Probate Code section 21362, a provision relating to the presumption of fraud or undue influence for donative transfers to caregivers of dependent adults. The case arose when the defendant, Elvira Gutierrez, who provided care services to the decedent in exchange for room and board, was named as the sole beneficiary in the decedent’s testamentary instruments. The plaintiffs, relatives of the decedent, argued that Gutierrez was a "care custodian" under the Probate Code, and that her receipt of the decedent’s estate should be presumed to be the product of fraud or undue influence. The trial court initially ruled that Gutierrez was not a care custodian because room and board did not constitute remuneration for her services. However, the Court of Appeal reversed this decision, holding that "remuneration" as used in section 21362 does include room and board. The Court found that such an interpretation was consistent with the term's ordinary usage, the legislative intent to protect vulnerable adults from financial exploitation, and its interpretation in other legal contexts. The Court therefore concluded that Gutierrez was a care custodian under the statute, and the decedent’s donative gifts to her were subject to the presumption of fraud or undue influence. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Robinson v. Gutierrez" on Justia Law

Mother gave birth to K.B. in August 2022. Both she and K.B. tested positive for amphetamines, methamphetamines, and marijuana at the hospital, triggering a referral to the Department, which placed K.B. in temporary protective custody. Law enforcement subsequently arrested both parents on out-of-county warrants, taking one-year-old K. into protective custody. The Department filed a dependency petition (Welf. & Inst. Code, 300(b),(j)) and reported that the social worker had contacted the maternal grandmother as part of the Department’s inquiry into Minors’ Native American ancestry and that: “There are relatives to consider for placement at time of detention.” The Minors were placed in a non-relative foster home. A subsequent report stated that Mother “was unable to identify any relatives to be considered for placement”; the maternal grandmother and other relatives reside in Mississippi. Father stated that he has relatives in Arkansas that may be options in the future but he was unable to identify any relatives in California.” The paternal grandmother was also contacted.At the contested hearing, the parties did not raise the investigation regarding relative placement. The juvenile court declared Minors dependents, ordered that the Department offer reunification services, and found that the Department exercised due diligence to identify, locate, and contact relatives. The court of appeal reversed in part. There is no evidence that the Department exercised due diligence in identifying and investigating Minors’ adult relatives, or that any relatives received the required notice detailing options for participation. View "In re K.B." on Justia Law

J.W. was born in 2008. Father died in 2015. J.W.'s paternal Grandmother helped raise J.W. since birth. Mother had denied Grandmother contact with J.W. since Father’s death. The court awarded Mother sole custody and granted Grandmother visitation. In 2021, Mother sought to vacate the visitation order, indicating she had moved to Southern California. Grandmother sought temporary emergency orders to enforce visitation. The court set a long cause hearing. The court provided an oral statement of decision, at Mother's request, at the conclusion of the long cause hearing on April 5, 2022, the existing order to allow one visit every other month, plus summertime visits. On June 15, 2022, the court filed Findings and Orders, reducing its oral statement of decision to writing. Grandmother served Mother with notice of the order on June 23. On May 12, Mother filed a notice and motion to vacate and substitute a new judgment or for a new trial. She filed amended notices and motions on May 27 and June 2022. The written denial was served on the parties on September 6, 2022. On September 21, 2022, Mother filed her notice of appeal, stating the appeal was taken from a June 15, 2022 judgment. The court of appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Mother filed a notice of appeal beyond the 60-day deadline. View "Z.V. v. Cheryl W." on Justia Law

V.S. and V.K., both born in India, met in 2009 in Illinois, where they both lived. In 2010, during a trip to India, they participated in the Phera Hindu marriage ceremony. In 2013, the couple had a civil marriage ceremony in Illinois. In 2019, V.S. petitioned for the dissolution of the marriage, identifying the date of marriage as December 2010. Although V.K. in his response, likewise indicated the date of marriage as December 2010. He later argued that the date of marriage was the date of the Chicago civil ceremony.The court of appeal affirmed that the 2010 Phera was not legally binding under the Hindu Marriage Act and that the parties were not married until their U.S. civil ceremony. An out-of-state marriage is “valid” in California if it “would be valid by laws of the jurisdiction in which the marriage was contracted” (Family Code 308). The court upheld a determination that the Phera was not legally binding on V.K., who was not domiciled in India and did not voluntarily submit to be bound by the Act. The court properly did not treat V.K.’s initial admission that the parties were married in 2010 as a judicial admission of fact; the date of the parties’ marriage is a predominantly legal conclusion not susceptible of judicial admission as a disputed fact. Substantial evidence supports the determination that V.S. was not entitled to treatment as a putative spouse after the Phera. View "Marriage of V.S. & V.K." on Justia Law

Kayla (born in September 2017) came to the attention of the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) after Defendant (mother) was arrested in May 2019. After mother’s arrest, officers found one-year-old Kayla in a motel room, alone. Mother, who was born in California, told an officer and a social worker that she had been living in Nevada since 2017 but had just moved back to California in May 2019 to find work and a place to live. Defendant appealed from an order terminating parental rights to her child, Kayla W. Mother contends that that Nevada’s relinquishment of jurisdiction was conditioned on Kayla being placed with maternal grandfather, so once Kayla was removed from maternal grandfather in December 2021 and placed with another caregiver, the court had to contact Nevada so that it could reassert jurisdiction. Mother argued that the court failed to comply with the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA, Fam. Code, Section 3400, et seq.)   The Second Appellate District affirmed. The court first held that mother forfeited the UCCJEA issue because she never objected to Nevada’s declination of jurisdiction, California’s acceptance of jurisdiction, or raised any jurisdictional issue when Kayla was removed from maternal grandfather’s care. Further, the court explained that Nevada did not and could not impose a jurisdictional condition precedent. Moreover, Sections 3429 and 3422 did not require the court to consult Nevada. View "In re Kayla W." on Justia Law

The parties married in 2001 and separated in 2011. Before the marriage, the husband operated a nursery as a sole proprietorship. After the marriage, the husband formed a corporation to operate the business. In 2003, the nursery business was “sold” to the corporation for $1 In the dissolution action, the court rejected the husband’s contention that the corporation was a continuation of the pre-existing business and that the business was presumptively community property.On interlocutory appeal, the court of appeal affirmed that the husband did not have a claim for reimbursement under Family Code section 2640 for contributions of separate property to a community asset. The $1 sale price is not determinative. A spouse who decides to sell property to the community is electing not to contribute the property “freely and without reservation” “to benefit the community.” It also is not a “general expectation” (ibid.) of most spouses that if they sell separate property to the community, they will nevertheless receive additional reimbursement for the transferred property, over and above the sale price, if the community dissolves. View "Marriage of Motiska & Ford" on Justia Law

This case involved the complicated relationship between a mother, Teri A., and her son, Zachary H. During a tense period in their relationship, Zachary H. moved out of Teri A.’s home and informed her that he did not want to have further contact. Over Zachary H.’s repeated objections, Teri A. continued to reach out to him by mail, text message, e-mail, and by showing up to his home unannounced. Zachary H. claimed that after he moved out, Teri A. nearly ran him over with her car as he walked along the sidewalk near his residence. Following this incident, Teri A. sent Zachary H. a series of e-mails that caused him significant emotional distress. Immediately after receiving Teri A.’s e-mail referencing firearms, Zachary H. sought a domestic violence restraining order (DVRO). During the DVRO hearing, the trial court found Zachary H.’s testimony to be credible, and evidence established Zachary H. was in reasonable apprehension of imminent serious bodily harm and issued a DVRO for a period of one year, including a related firearms prohibition. Teri A. appealed, claiming the trial court abused its discretion by issuing the DVRO because it was not supported by substantial evidence and because the DVRO resulted from evidentiary errors by the trial court. She also contended the firearms prohibition violated her constitutional rights under the Second and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Finding no abuse of discretion, and that the firearms restriction issued in conjunction with the DVRO was constitutional. View "Zachary H. v. Teri A." on Justia Law

Natalie F. (Mother) and Jan F. (Father) are parents of a now six-year-old girl, M.F., and a three-year-old boy, O.F. Mother sought a restraining order under the Domestic Violence Prevention Act (DVPA) against Father. She claimed she suffered abuse within the meaning of the DVPA as a result of Father making false police reports to the Santa Monica Police Department (SMPD) to conduct welfare checks on the children while they were in Mother’s care and sending her and her attorney over 130 harassing messages via email and the communication platform Our Family Wizard (OFW) over a 40-day period. The family court denied Mother’s request for a domestic violence restraining order (DVRO), finding Father’s actions as alleged by Mother did not constitute abuse under the DVPA. Mother argues the family court erred in denying her DVRO request because Father’s actions amounted to abuse, and the First Amendment does not protect such conduct. She further argues that regardless of whether she could seek a remedy in the custody proceedings, she was still entitled to a DVRO.   The Second Appellate District reversed and remanded. The court concluded that based on the limited evidence before it, the family court erred in denying the DVRO. Mother adduced evidence that Father made multiple requests for police welfare checks not for any legitimate reason but based on false information to harass her. If fully credited, that evidence alone was sufficient to demonstrate abuse under the DVPA and to require the issuance of a DVRO, and the family court erred in finding otherwise. View "Jan F. v. Natalie F." on Justia Law

At a dispositional hearing, a juvenile court placed R.Q. (minor) with her biological father, C.H. On appeal, defendant-appellant, K.Q. (presumed father), contended the court abused its discretion in placing minor with C.H. Plaintiff-respondent, San Bernardino County Children and Family Services (the department), received a referral alleging physical abuse to R.Q. by A.P. (stepmother). Minor disclosed stepmother had choked her and pulled her hair. The family had an open, voluntary family maintenance plan due to stepmother hitting minor. The department had also received a previous referral alleging physical abuse to minor by stepmother. A.H., minor’s biological mother (mother), did not live in the home. The social worker spoke to minor and R.Q.2, the biological daughter of presumed father and mother, who both reported incidents of physical abuse by stepmother. Despite stepmother and presumed father both denying the allegations, the department took minor into protective custody pursuant to a warrant. The department filed a Welfare and Institutions Code section 3001 petition alleging mother and presumed father failed to protect minor from physical abuse; that mother and presumed father had substance abuse problems; and that mother had an untreated mental illness. C.H. indicated he had not found out about minor's birth until she was two years old. After paternity testing, supervised visits and ultimately a social worker review, at a dispositional hearing, it was recommended the minor be placed with C.H. Presumed father contended the court abused its discretion in placing minor with C.H. The department agreed that a juvenile court did not have authority under Welfare and Institutions Code section 361.2 to place a child with a “mere biological parent”; however, the department maintained that a juvenile court has discretion to order such a placement under its broad authority to act in a child’s best interest. Thus, the department argued the court acted within its discretion in placing minor with C.H. To this the Court of Appeal agreed with the department and affirmed the court order placing the child with her biological father. View "In re R.Q." on Justia Law