Justia California Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Following a child custody hearing in January 2017, the trial court entered an order giving Mother sole custody. In June 2017, Father filed an unsuccessful request to set aside that order. Weeks later, he filed a second unsuccessful request to modify the order. The trial court denied Mother’s request for section 271 sanctions. Months later, she again sought sanctions relating to the June 2017 motion. Father filed an objection but did not challenge the motion on the basis of timeliness. The court ordered Father to pay $10,000 in section 271 sanctions. Father sought reconsideration, arguing for the first time that the sanction request was untimely under California Rules of Court, rule 3.1702(b). The trial court denied the motion and awarded Mother $3,000 in attorney fee sanctions for having to defend the ex parte motion for reconsideration.The court of appeal affirmed. Rule 3.1702(b) states: “A notice of motion to claim attorney’s fees for services up to and including the rendition of judgment in the trial court—including attorney’s fees on an appeal before the rendition of judgment in the trial court—must be served and filed within the time for filing a notice of appeal.” The timing of a notice of appeal is based on the entry of judgment. The sanctions at issue were awarded for attorney fees incurred after entry of the January 2017 judgment; rule 3.1702 does not apply. View "George v. Shams-Shirazi" on Justia Law

After seven-year-old D.P. was removed from his mother's physical custody and returned home to father's custody, mother appealed the removal order under Welfare and Institutions Code section 361, subdivision (e).The Court of Appeal held that the juvenile court failed to state the facts supporting removal, and that there was a reasonable probability that the juvenile court would have adopted the alternative to removal specified in section 361, subdivision (c)(1)(A) had it considered the option. In regard to mother's challenge regarding the parts of the disposition order restricting her to monitored visitation and requiring her to participate in a full drug and alcohol treatment program, the court held that the juvenile court reasonably exercised its discretion to impose visitation restrictions and services. Accordingly, the court reversed the removal portion of the disposition order and affirmed in all other respects. View "In re D.P." on Justia Law

J.M., born in 2010, suffered an accident when he was 10 months old. Since the accident J.M. has resided at Children’s Hospital, suffering from anoxic brain injury, epilepsy, developmental delays, and bone disorders. He has gastrostomy and tracheal tubes and is nonverbal. In 2017, the Hospital declared him medically cleared for discharge, provided that two adults be trained as caregivers. J.M.’s father had never visited him; his mother’s visits were infrequent. The Santa Clara County Department of Family and Children’s Service filed a petition alleging that his parents were unwilling and/or unable to care for him and that they had a history of substance abuse. The Department recommended permanent legal guardianship by J.M.’s grandmother, who visited J.M. regularly and with whom J.M. had a positive emotional bond. J.M.’s siblings were also in her care. Grandmother completed some but not all of the training to care for J.M.; she had no plans to obtain accessible housing. Grandmother was not seeking placement of J.M. in her home. J.M. opposed the plan, arguing that the court lacked authority to appoint grandmother as legal guardian without him being in her physical custody and that the plan was not in his best interest because it would relieve the Department of any obligation to find a less restrictive placement. The court of appeal affirmed the adoption of the Department’s recommendation. Continued residence at the hospital may not be optimal, but grandmother is committed to J.M’s best interest and supports moving him to a suitable permanent care facility should that become available. The court asked the Department to continue to look for more permanent placement, View "In re J.M." on Justia Law

The Court of Appeal reversed the juvenile court's dispositional orders as to father only, entered on May 4, 2015, including the denial and termination of reunification services for father only. The court also vacated the juvenile court's April 30, 2019 order terminating parental rights.The court held that the department failed to show that the inadequate notice error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, and that father has shown a miscarriage of justice through the denial of his right to appear and his right to counsel. The court remanded with instructions to appoint counsel for father and to conduct a new dispositional hearing under sections 358 and 360, taking into account any evidence developed after the May 4, 2015 hearing that may bear upon the issues to be decided at the new dispositional hearing. View "In re A.J." on Justia Law

Following protracted postjudgment litigation over the transfer of title of real property from Natache Menezes (Wife) to Tim McDaniel (Husband), the trial court issued $200,000 in sanctions against Wife, pursuant to Family Code section 271. Wife challenged the sanctions, contending they improperly included anticipated attorney fees and costs, and the amount was not supported by substantial evidence showing they were tethered to attorney fees and costs. The Court of Appeal concluded the superior court did not abuse its discretion by awarding the sanctions, including the anticipated fees and costs. However, the matter was remanded for the trial court to ensure that the bases for the $200,000 award included only expenses tethered to attorney fees and costs. View "Menezes v. McDaniel" on Justia Law

Sixteen months after a jurisdiction and disposition hearing where the juvenile court placed mother J.A.’s twin children with their nonoffending, noncustodial father and dismissed the dependency with family law exit orders, she challenged the court’s findings and sought to unwind the removal order. Relying on the Court of Appeal's decision in In re A.O., 242 Cal.App.4th 145 (2015), she argued the lateness of her appeal should be excused because the juvenile court failed to advise her of her appellate rights at the close of the hearing, as required by California Rules of Court, rule 5.590(a). The Court concluded A.O. and the line of cases preceding it were distinguishable, and did not apply to this case. The Court therefore dismissed the appeal as unjustifiably late. View "In re J.A." on Justia Law

The Court of Appeal reversed the juvenile court's dispositional order removing son from father's custody under Welfare and Institutions Code section 361, subdivision (c). The court held that the juvenile court erroneously failed to apply section 361.2, subdivision (a), and the error was not harmless. In this case, the record was not clear as to the finding of detriment. Accordingly, the court remanded the matter to the juvenile court to consider the facts within the appropriate statutory provision. View "In re Adam H." on Justia Law

The Court of Appeal affirmed the juvenile court's jurisdictional order and findings that father's children are persons described by Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (f). The juvenile court previously sustained a petition finding that the minors' mother and father caused the death of another child. The court held that the juvenile court did not err in asserting jurisdiction in this case, because it was uncontroverted that, in the earlier case, the juvenile court had found mother and father caused the death of their child through abuse or neglect. View "In re I.I." on Justia Law

The Department filed suit against defendant, seeking an order compelling him to make monthly child support payments effective December 1, 2017. After defendant failed to respond, the superior court entered a default judgment unilaterally changing the effective date of the child support obligation to March 1, 2018.The Court of Appeal reversed and held that there was no evidence (let alone substantial evidence) on which the superior court could find that defendant did not evade service, intentionally or otherwise. Therefore, in the absence of such evidence, the superior court erred in changing the effective date of the child support obligation sua sponte to deprive defendant's children of three months of support. Accordingly, the court remanded with directions to enter the proposed judgment as the final judgment. View "County of L.A. Child Support Services Dept. v. Watson" on Justia Law

The parties were married for just over 20 years. A stipulated judgment dissolving their marriage was filed in December 2014, and included the parties’ agreement for spousal support. Richard Pasco appealed a postjudgment order denying his request for an order terminating spousal support. He claimed the trial court abused its discretion by denying his request on the first day of trial “without ever actually taking evidence.” Respondent Zoe Pasco argued the trial court acted within its discretion “in refusing to hear” oral evidence. The Court of Appeal surmised issue here was not whether the trial court had discretion to refuse to hear oral evidence; the issue was that the trial court denied Richard’s request without taking any evidence. "This was an abuse of the court’s discretion." Accordingly, the Court reversed the court’s September 11, 2017 order and remanded with directions to proceed with a previously scheduled, two- day trial unless intervening circumstances or settlement obviated the need for this trial. View "Marriage of Pasco" on Justia Law