Justia California Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

The Mendocino County Department of Social Services filed a Welfare and Institutions Code section 3001 petition concerning three minors, alleging their mother was unable to care for them, and that Father’s whereabouts were unknown. Mother and Minors were enrolled members of the Hopland Band of Pomo Indians. The case was governed by the Indian Child Welfare Act (25 U.S.C. 1901). The Department located Father in a Florida jail. He requested services. Father was released and submitted evidence that, while incarcerated, Father had completed substance abuse classes and a dog training program. The court sustained an allegation that Father “has a pattern of criminal behaviors that includes a drug-related arrest and conviction in 2014 that severely impairs his ability to care for” his children. He had not seen Minors in more than five years nor spoken to them in two years. At a six-month hearing, Father argued reasonable services were not provided, citing a delay in creating Father’s case plan and failure to provide drug testing or regular phone visitation. The court found reasonable services had been provided; that Father had not complied; and the Department made active efforts to prevent the Indian family's breakup. The court ordered continued services with weekly telephone visits. The court of appeals reversed, finding that, although the likelihood of reunification may be low, the Department was obliged to provide services, regardless of Father’s out-of-state location View "In re T.W." on Justia Law

The Department and the child challenged the dismissal of a juvenile dependency petition after an adjudication hearing under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300. The petition was the result of allegations of neglect, including the child falling out of a second story window of the apartment in which the child was then living with the father. The court concluded that the juvenile court abused its discretion in denying the motions to amend the petition where it failed to acknowledge that the record was replete with facts well-known to the parents, and that recognizing this circumstance by granting leave to amend to conform to proof, would not have misled the parents to their prejudice. Accordingly, the court reversed the judgment. View "In re Marcus C., Jr." on Justia Law

Mother and presumed father challenged the juvenile court's order under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 terminating their parental rights to Breanna and David, and identifying adoption as the permanent plan for the children. The court concluded that the Department failed to comply with the notice requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), 25 U.S.C. 1901 et seq. In this case, the Department conceded that it omitted required information from the ICWA notice, and the omission of information mandated by federal law requires that ICWA notices be resent. Therefore, the court remanded to allow the Department and the juvenile court to remedy the violation of federal and state law. The court otherwise conditionally affirmed the order. View "In re Breanna S." on Justia Law

After the juvenile court terminated Father and Mother's parental rights to their children, Grace and Michael, Father argued that the juvenile court erred in finding the beneficial parent-child relationship exception to termination did not apply and in denying him a contested hearing on that issue. Mother adopts Father's arguments on appeal. The court concluded, as a matter of first impression, that the juvenile court abused its discretion in denying Father a contested selection and implementation hearing under Welfare and Institutions Code 366.26. The court explained that when, as here, a parent has consistently and regularly visited his or her children and at the selection and implementation hearing, offers testimony regarding the quality of their parent-child relationship and possible resulting detriment that would be caused by its termination, a juvenile court abuses its discretion if it denies a contested hearing on the beneficial parent-child relationship exception. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for a contested hearing and for a determination of whether a beneficial parent-child relationship exists and prevents the termination of parental rights. View "In re Grace P." on Justia Law

In 2009 Husband filed a divorce petition. The couple had a house on a ranch in Lemon Cove, purchased by Husband before the marriage. Wife maintained the ranch. Husband, who worked in the Silicon Valley, flew to the ranch on weekends. They had another ranch with a cottage in Exeter, 15 horses, nine vehicles, six motorcycles, two Airstream travel trailers, an airplane, a boat, three horse trailers, and three tractors. In 2010 the court ordered Husband to pay Wife $7,600 in monthly support retroactive to March 2009, and $6,800 in monthly support for 2010, plus $30,000 in need-based attorney’s fees, commenting that Husband had “shown an unwillingness or inability to completely self-report income.” The court of appeal affirmed. In 2013 the court ordered Husband to pay Wife $826,789 ($25,496 in support arrears, $245,273 to divide the community estate, and $556,020 to remedy Husband’s fiduciary breaches) and later awarded Wife $318,510 in attorney’s fees and $5,737.50 in costs, offset by $15,000 for attorney’s fees incurred by Husband associated with Wife’s breaches of fiduciary duty. Wife was awarded $412,485 in need-based attorney’s fees, offset by $105,000 for fees already paid. The court of appeal reversed in part; the trial court erred by making duplicative awards of community assets and by finding breaches of fiduciary duty for dissolution disclosure violations involving Husband’s separate property and community income earned and spent before separation. View "In re: Marriage of Schleich" on Justia Law

N.S. was placed in foster care at age 11. After she turned 18 in 2014, she remained under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court as a nonminor dependent. (Welf. & Inst. Code 11400(v)), having been diagnosed with posttraumatic stress disorder, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, and depressive disorder. She was participating in therapy and taking medication. The report indicated that N.S. would be enrolled in an educational program. A 2015 report indicated that N.S. qualified for extended foster care because her mental health, prevented her from participating in education or an employment program. In 2016, the Agency recommended that N.S.’s dependency be dismissed because her exact whereabouts were unknown and she had not participated in any services. N.S. had admitted she was using methamphetamine. She was not interested in treatment referrals or placement. She was meeting with her therapist, Chan, sporadically. At the contested hearing, both N.S. and Chan testified. Counsel asked Chan about N.S.’s diagnosis; she and N.S. asserted the psychotherapist-patient privilege. The juvenile court concluded the privilege did not apply because N.S. had put her mental state at issue. The court of appeal disagreed, rejecting an argument that the Agency and the court will be unable to verify the eligibility requirement without information from Chan. It is the Agency’s position that it is N.S.’s substance abuse, and not her mental health condition, that prevents her from meeting the criteria. View "N.S. v. Superior Ct." on Justia Law

After Mother was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol with her two children in the car, the Department filed a dependency action seeking juvenile court jurisdiction over the children. Mother and Father appeal, arguing that this was a one-time incident that is insufficient to support the juvenile court’s finding that their children were at substantial risk of suffering serious physical harm pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b)(1). The court found, however, that Mother and Father not only seriously jeopardized the physical safety of their children on the night Mother drove while intoxicated, they continued to minimize the seriousness of the incident during the dependency proceedings and had not, at the time of the jurisdiction hearing, taken any significant steps to participate in educational programs concerning the problematic use of alcohol that gave rise to the substantial risk to the children's safety. Therefore, the court concluded that there was sufficient evidence to support the juvenile court's determinations, and the court affirmed the judgment. View "In re M.R." on Justia Law

M.C., a gestational carrier, challenges the trial court's declaration that Father is the sole legal parent of triplet children and finding that M.C. has no parental rights. M.C. entered into the surrogacy arrangement with Father, pursuant to a written “In Vitro Fertilization Surrogacy Agreement.” As a preliminary matter, the court concluded that M.C. is not estopped from challenging the legal effect or validity of the Agreement. On the merits, the court concluded that Father complied with the requirements for establishing a parent-child relationship and for terminating M.C.’s claimed parental rights pursuant to Family Code section 7962. The court also concluded that the trial court's application of section 7962 is consistent with the constitutional rights of M.C. and the children. In this case, M.C.'s various substantive and procedural challenges are foreclosed by specific legislative provisions and by a prior decision by the California Supreme Court. Because the court found no error in the trial court's ruling, the court affirmed the judgment. View "C.M. v. M.C." on Justia Law

Mother‘s childhood was marked by abuse and neglect. When she was 13 years old she began an abusive relationship with Carl, a 20-year-old dropout. Their child, Carl Jr., was born when Mother was 14. While still a minor, Mother left Carl, started a relationship with Kevin, and gave birth to Harmony in 2012 and Melody in 2013. The family, including both fathers, had at least 13 referrals for physical and emotional abuse and neglect before Melody died in 2015, as a result of acute methadone toxicity. The Agency filed petitions on behalf of the surviving children, alleging failure to protect because: parents allowed them to live in a home where dangerous medications were within easy access despite Carl Jr.‘s earlier methadone poisoning; Mother failed to adequately supervise the children by frequently leaving them with Grandmother or Carl Sr. despite earlier incidents and warnings from the Agency; and Kevin was living in a residential facility. The court found that Mother‘s neglect contributed to Melody's death and that there was no clear and convincing evidence that reunification services were in the children’s best interest. The court of appeal upheld the court‘s jurisdictional findings and the bypass of services to Mother, but reversed the dismissal of Carl Jr.‘s dependency case. View "In re Carl H." on Justia Law

After the juvenile court found by clear and convincing evidence that there was a substantial danger to the children and no reasonable means to protect them other than removal from father's custody, the juvenile court ordered the children removed only from father and remain placed with mother. Father was also ordered to participate in random, on-demand drug testing and to participate in a parenting program, as well as individual counseling. The court concluded that there was substantial evidence for the juvenile court to infer that father's negligent conduct - possessing a loaded gun in an accessible location and possessing methamphetamine in his car - was likely to recur and did not represent a momentary lapse in judgment. Under Michael S., the court concluded that the juvenile court could reasonably conclude that it was appropriate to remove the children only from father and allow them to remain with mother. In this case, there was substantial evidence that mother was unaware of father's negligent conduct, and once made aware of it, was committed to doing what was necessary to protect the children from such conduct in the future. Accordingly, the court affirmed the dispositional orders. View "In re Yolanda L." on Justia Law