Justia California Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Mother appeals from the juvenile court's permanent restraining order against her requiring her to stay away from the father of their six-year-old daughter. Mother contends that there was insufficient evidence to support the inclusion of the daughter in the restraining order as a protected person. The court agreed and concluded that the juvenile court erred by including the daughter as a protected person in the restraining order where there is no evidence that Mother failed to obey the visitation order or in any way abused her visitation rights. Because the restraining order requires Mother here to stay away from Father, Mother necessarily is required to stay away from the daughter when the child physically is in father’s presence. Accordingly, the court remanded for modification of the restraining order. View "In re N.L." on Justia Law

Bashar Ahmedo and Sina Faton initially represented themselves in the proceedings before the trial court, which solely concerned the issue of a Domestic Violence Restraining Order (DVRO). The trial court granted a DVRO against Ahmedo; Ahmedo subsequently obtained counsel and filed a motion for reconsideration; and after reconsidering the matter the court reissued the DVRO against Ahmedo. Faton, who retained counsel when Ahmedo filed his reconsideration motion, thereafter filed a motion for attorney fees under Family Code section 6344, which was granted by the trial court. Ahmedo appealed that order requiring him to pay attorney fees incurred by Faton to obtain the restraining order against him. He argued the fee award was improper because the fees were not requested in a timely or proper manner and they were unsupported by the evidence. The Court of Appeal rejected these contentions and affirmed. View "Faton v. Ahmedo" on Justia Law

A.W. appealed from the juvenile court’s jurisdiction findings and disposition order adjudging her four-year-old son, M.M., a dependent of the juvenile court, removing him from A.W.’s care and custody and placing him with the Department for suitable placement. Although the Department concedes that A.W. had a right to be present at the jurisdiction and disposition hearing, it argued that any alleged errors were harmless. The court reversed, concluding that the juvenile court violated A.W.'s statutory right to be present at the contested hearing and the error was not harmless because live testimony plays a vital role in a court's assessment of credibility and its evaluation of conflicting evidence. In this case, if A.W.'s oral testimony were believed, there is no doubt that the result of the challenged proceedings would have been more favorable to her. View "In re M.M." on Justia Law

Tom and Penny Honer were married in 1982. During their marriage, they purchased and built up several grocery stores, two of which remained primary marital assets. The businesses were held by an S corporation. Tom was and is president and CEO of and Penny was Vice President. Tom managed the grocery stores, while Penny handled administrative tasks, such as payroll, billing, advertising, employee training, and customer relations. She computerized their operations. The corporation paid Tom a base salary of $260,000 per year. Penny did not draw a salary, but after the separation she was paid $6,500 per month as a director. Tom was 64 at the time of trial, in good health, and worked fulltime. After 1997, Penny, who was 58, taught elementary school 2002-2009, while peripherally involved in the grocery business. In 2009 the two separated and Penny was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis. She has not worked since. They owned a 52-acre ranch in Mendocino and other commercial real estate, which produces rental income. Penny, who filed for divorce in 2010 challenged the court’s valuation of the grocery stores and the amount of spousal support she was awarded. The court of appeal affirmed. View "In re: Marriage of Honer" on Justia Law

Defendant is the mother of nine-year-old Ethan. Ethan is under the custody of his maternal grandmother and legal guardian. At issue on appeal was when the juvenile court orders a legal guardianship for a child with visitation for the mother, and the child refuses to participate in visitation, may the court terminate dependency jurisdiction with knowledge that its visitation order will not be honored or enforceable. The court concluded that absent a finding of detriment Ethan’s refusal to visit defendant constituted an exceptional circumstance under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.3, subdivision (a) and warranted ongoing dependency jurisdiction; the juvenile court, by terminating its dependency jurisdiction, impermissibly delegated its authority over visitation to Ethan and abused its discretion; and therefore, the court reversed the order and remanded for further proceedings. View "In re Ethan J." on Justia Law

The Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services filed a petition, alleging that four minors were at risk of physical harm and emotional damage due to their mother’s conduct. The petition stated that mother had regularly complained (or prompted others to complain) that father physically or sexually abused the children, that these complaints were false, and that mother’s conduct subjected the children to repeated sexual assault examinations and law enforcement interviews, all of which had severe negative consequences on the children: All four had expressed suicidal thoughts; two were placed in involuntary mental health holds; one had gained 40 pounds; and all four were chronically absent from, or tardy to, school. Mother moved to dismiss the petition because she and father are already litigating custody in family court. The trial court granted the motion. The court of appeal reversed, stating that to rob the Department of its chance to prove its allegations is to elevate judicial economy above the protection of children, in contravention of the Legislature’s express declaration that dependency jurisdiction be construed broadly. View "In re Nicholas E." on Justia Law

Luis V. (father) appealed a juvenile court order establishing jurisdiction over his three daughters: Briana V., Marlene V., and Patricia V., pursuant to Welfare & Institutions Code section 300. Father was the primary caregiver for the children, who lived with him and paternal grandmother (PGM). Father and the girls' mother, Chantha T. had been separated for approximately two years. Mother was in a new relationship with P.K. and they had a child together, Vincent K. In late 2013, the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) received a referral alleging that Briana had been physically abused by father and PGM. DCFS detained Briana, Marlene, and Patricia from father, and shortly thereafter, filed a section 300 petition on behalf of Briana, Marlene, Patricia, and Vincent. The petition alleged under subdivision a-1 that father had physically abused Briana when he slapped her on the face. Under subdivision (b) (failure to protect), counts 1 to 4, the petition alleged that father was a registered sex offender and had exposed his penis to Patricia and bathed and dressed the girls; that father physically abused Briana by slapping her face; and that father failed to protect the girls by allowing paternal uncle Octavio, who was a current user of marijuana, to stay in the home. Under subdivision (d) (sexual abuse), the petition repeated the allegations that father was a registered sex offender, had bathed and dressed the children, and shared a bedroom with them. Father contended in his appeal of the juvenile court order that substantial evidence did not support the juvenile court's findings as to him. Finding no reversible error, the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment. View "In re Briana V." on Justia Law

Andrew is the biological father of Emilio, born in July 2013. Katherine is Emilio’s biological mother. Andrew and Katherine never married. Before Emilio was born, Andrew and Katherine had broken up. Katherine had become aware that Andrew could be violent and unpredictable. In September 2012, he yelled at and pushed Katherine’s mother; he pled guilty to possession of metal knuckles and trespassing and was put on probation. After Katherine became pregnant, several incidents occurred that confirmed her belief that Andrew could be violent and unpredictable. Katherine sought to have Emilio adopted by a couple in San Francisco, who filed a petition to terminate the parental rights of Andrew. After a trial, the court found that although Andrew was Emilio’s biological father, he had not established that he was Emilio’s presumed father within the meaning of Adoption of Kelsey S., with the attendant right to withhold consent to Emilio’s adoption. The court concluded it would be would be in Emilio’s best interests to terminate Andrew’s parental rights. The court of appeal affirmed, finding that substantial evidence supported a finding that Andrew is not a “Kelsey S. father,” and that the court did not abuse its discretion in terminating Andrew’s parental rights. View "Adoption of Emilio G." on Justia Law

The juvenile court declared A.R., age four, a dependent of the court and ordered him to remain in the custody of both parents under the supervision of the Department of Family and Children’s Services. A.R.’s presumed father and mother were not married. At disposition in January 2014, the court ordered family maintenance services for both parents. In March 2014, father moved out of the home not pursuant to any court order. He eventually disengaged from services without addressing his alcoholism or marijuana use. Using the Request to Change Court Order form (JV-180), the Department requested modification of the dispositional order. A September 2014 order made removal findings, continued A.R. under the care, custody, and control of mother under the Department’s supervision, provided family maintenance services for only A.R. and mother, and provided supervised visitation for father. The court of appeal affirmed. There was evidence of changed circumstances sufficient to justify the court’s modification of its prior order. Although the removal findings were not supported by substantial evidence, the error was harmless. At the time of the findings, father had already moved out of the home and A.R. was no longer actually in father’s physical custody. View "In re A.R." on Justia Law

Robert filed a petition to dissolve his marriage to Isabel, an attorney in 2009. The court entered judgment on March 11, 2013. A second judgment was entered on March 18, 2013; it made handwritten changes to a single paragraph of the original. On May 15, 2013, the court issued an order directing the clerk to make additional modifications to the judgment. On May 17, 2013, Isabel filed her notice of appeal, listing and attaching only the second, March 18, judgment. The court of appeal dismissed: Isabel’s time to appeal ran from the original judgment entered on March 11, so that her appeal is untimely. View "Ellis v. Ellis" on Justia Law