Justia California Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

In May 1995, Charlene’s parents created CJPM Family Partnership, Ltd. Charlene’s parents are the general partners. Charlene, her parents, and her siblings are limited partners of CJPM. Philip and Charlene married in June 1995. CJPM made three loans to Philip totaling $150,000, which were credited against Charlene’s partnership interest. Philip did not repay the debt. The two divorced in 2011. Their stipulated dissolution judgment awarded Charlene all interest to any community interest in CJPM, assigned to Philip, as his separate obligation, his debt to CJPM, and required Philip to indemnify Charlene from that debt. Philip filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy. All of his debts, including his CJPM loan, were discharged. Years later, Charlene unsuccessfully moved to reopen bankruptcy proceedings to obtain a ruling that Philip’s debt to CJPM was nondischargeable. Charlene then moved to recover Philip’s CJPM debt in state court. The trial court determined that Philip’s CJPM debt was nondischargeable under the 11 U.S.C. 523(a)(15) exemption and calculated that Philip owes Charlene $345,963. The court of appeal affirmed. When the nature of a debt is such that its discharge will directly and adversely impact the finances of the debtor’s spouse or former spouse, it is nondischargeable in bankruptcy, even if it is not directly payable to the spouse. View "Marriage of Vaughn" on Justia Law

Mariana L. initiated a paternity and child support action in San Diego County against David L., a Connecticut resident. The trial court denied David's motion to quash service, and he sought writ review. The question this case presented for the Court of Appeal’s consideration was whether California could exercise specific personal jurisdiction over a nonresident in a paternity action where the mother and young child live in California and conception occurred in another state? On the particular facts presented, the Court answered this question in the negative and issued a writ of mandate to prevent the exercise of jurisdiction. David's knowledge that Mariana resided in California and the foreseeability of California effected (a child) from their out-of-state sexual intercourse were insufficient to establish the requisite minimum contacts. Specific jurisdiction must rest on David's own suit-related contacts with California, not merely a plaintiff who lives here. California thus cannot exercise personal jurisdiction over David in this paternity and child support action. View "David L. v. Superior Court" on Justia Law

S.Y. and Omar were married in 2013 and had one child, A. On August 29, 2016, Omar was physically violent with S.Y. Omar also grabbed S.Y., forced her and A. out of the house, and locked the door. S.Y. obtained a temporary restraining order against Omar, and Omar obtained temporary restraining orders against S.Y., S.Y.'s mother, and her brother. S.Y.'s order granted her sole legal and physical custody of A., but this order was not properly served on Omar. After hearing evidence from all parties, the court denied the mutual requests for permanent restraining orders and dismissed the temporary orders. There was a report to the Health and Human Services Agency that Omar had emotionally abused A., but the agency closed this referral after investigation. Omar filed a marital dissolution action against S.Y. in October 2016. Three weeks later, he filed a request for an order for joint legal custody and primary physical custody of A. At a preliminary hearing in 2017, the family court awarded S.Y. physical custody of A., with Omar to have supervised visitation twice a week for five hours each time. The visits were to be supervised by Omar's sister, with conditions. The court ordered sole legal custody to S.Y. because she and Omar were not communicating well. S.Y. did not let Omar see A. or talk with him on the phone from the time she moved out in August 2016 until February 2017. The trial court made an initial custody order, finding that, based on S.Y.'s contemporaneous statements to the police and the photographs of her injuries, Omar had been domestically violent toward her. The court applied the Family Code section 3044 presumption and found that Omar had rebutted the presumption that an award of custody to him would be detrimental to A.'s best interest. S.Y. contended the trial court erred when it found Omar rebutted the presumption, and requested the Court of Appeal vacate the trial court's interim order granting joint legal and de facto joint physical custody to both parents, direct the trial court to enter a new order after reconsidering the section 3044 presumption of detriment, and award costs to her. The Court agreed that the trial court erred in considering Omar's greater fluency in English as a factor rebutting the presumption of detriment due to his domestic violence. However, the Court concluded that evidence other than language fluency substantially supported the trial court's ruling that Omar had rebutted the presumption of detriment, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting joint legal and physical custody to both parents. View "S.Y. v. Superior Court" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's issuance of a domestic violence restraining order (DVRO) issued in favor of the wife. The court held that the trial court did not err in considering the wife's testimony that the husband held a gun to her head; the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to consider evidence to impeach the wife; and substantial evidence supported the trial court's issuance of the DVRO based on domestic violence allegations. View "In re Marriage of Davila and Mejia" on Justia Law

The wife in a married couple (defendants C.P. and J.P., wife and husband) conceived a child with a coworker (plaintiff C.A.), but hid that fact from wife’s employer and initially, from husband. The marriage remained intact and wife and husband parented the child. For the first three years of the child’s life, the couple allowed plaintiff to act in an alternate parenting role, and the child bonded with him and his close relatives. Defendants excluded plaintiff from the child’s life when he filed the underlying petition seeking legal confirmation of his paternal rights. The trial court found that wife misled the court at an interim custody hearing, prolonging what the court later viewed as an unwarranted separation. Despite this period of separation, the court found the child was still bonded to all three parents and found this to be a “rare” case where, pursuant to statutory authority, each of three parents should have been legally recognized as such, to prevent detriment to their child. Defendants appealed, but finding no abuse of discretion, the Court of Appeal affirmed. View "C.A. v. C.P." on Justia Law

The Court of Appeal affirmed the juvenile court's jurisdictional findings and dispositional orders declaring Father's children dependents of the court and detaining them from his custody. The court held that the children were indeed at risk of physical harm and, in any event, father's lengthy history of domestic violence against mother and the parents' frequent reconciliations justified the minors' inclusion in the restraining order. View "In re Bruno M." on Justia Law

Y.M. had four children who were dependents of the juvenile court: two daughters, Maria Q. and J.M., and two sons, W.Q. and J.Q. The girls were placed together in the foster care home of the Z.'s in August 2013; the boys had several foster care placements. Y.M. identified Aunt as a possible placement for the children. Shortly before the section 366.26 hearing, issues arose concerning the viability of the Z.'s foster care license and their ability to adopt the girls. In view of the boys' lack of stability and the uncertainty about the Z.'s ability to adopt the girls, the juvenile court continued the children's placement in foster care with the goal of finding a permanency plan including adoption, guardianship, placement with a fit and willing relative, or return home. V.C., the children's maternal great-aunt (Aunt), filed a section 388 petition asking the juvenile court to place the children in her care. The Agency supported Aunt's petition for the girls' placement but opposed placement of the boys, whose foster care parents wanted to adopt them. At a bifurcated hearing, the juvenile court declined to apply the relative placement preference under section 361.3, found that it was not in Maria's and J.M.'s best interests to be placed with Aunt, and continued their section 366.26 hearing. The court summarily denied Aunt's petition for placement of the boys. At a second section 366.26 hearing, the juvenile court terminated parental rights to W.Q. and J.Q. and designated their foster parents as their prospective adoptive parents. In an issue of first impression, the Court of Appeal concluded that the directive under section 361.3 to give preferential consideration to a relative seeking placement did not apply to relatives seeking placement of a child in continued foster care pursuant to section 366.26(b)(7). Furthermore, the Court held that when a relative of a dependent child files a section 388 petition requesting permanent placement of a child in continued foster care, the juvenile court should determine whether the petition makes a prima facie showing that the relative is fit and willing to care for the child and if so, set a post-permanency review hearing under section 366.3. The juvenile court's findings were “amply” supported by the record. The Court therefore affirmed the orders denying Aunt's request for placement of the children. View "In re Maria Q." on Justia Law

The Court of Appeal reversed the juvenile court's disposition orders and held that the juvenile court erred in establishing jurisdiction based on a factual and legal theory not raised in the original petition. In this case, the Department filed a dependency petition on G.B.'s behalf, alleging the child had been sexually abused by her mother's boyfriend, and that her mother had failed to protect her from the boyfriend's abuse. The juvenile court found the allegations untrue but, on its own motion, added three allegations against father based on facts and a legal theory not at issue in the original petition. View "In re G.B." on Justia Law

The presumption of parentage is rebuttable and a non-biological parent can be a presumed parent. After Brian Pickett died, his partner, two biological children, and his partner's child, A.G., filed a wrongful death action against defendants. The trial court held that A.G. lacked standing to sue, and entered judgment against him.The Court of Appeal reversed the grant of summary judgment to defendants, holding that the record did not rebut the presumption that Brian Pickett was A.G.'s natural parent. In this case, from the time A.G. was one, Pickett was the only father he knew and unrebutted testimony established that Pickett held A.G. out as his child. View "A.G. v. County of Los Angeles" on Justia Law

This appeal arises from the juvenile court's selection of a tribal customary adoption as the permanent plan for minors A.S. and E.S. and the corresponding award of full faith and credit to the tribal customary adoption order. C.S. (Father) and T.F. (Mother) appeal the court's orders, contending that their due process rights were violated by the failure of the tribe to consider evidence from the parents in developing a tribal customary adoption order and by the court's exclusion of evidence at the Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing. The Court of Appeal found the trial court stated it had reviewed the reports that it had received and had considered the testimony and arguments of the parties before arriving at a decision. The trial court noted that the parents had received more than 44 months of services and that neither parent had adequately addressed the protective issues raised by the case. The court found that A.S. and E.S. were specifically and generally adoptable Indian children and that the social worker had consulted with the Tribe, which had elected a permanent plan of tribal customary adoption for the children. The court received the Tribe's Tribal Customary Adoption Order and afforded it full faith and credit. Mother and Father separately appealed these orders from the section 366.26 hearing on various grounds. Finding no reason to disturb the trial court's orders, the Court of Appeal affirmed the orders in their entirety. View "In re A.S." on Justia Law