Justia California Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

The case involves S.G., the mother of four children, aged eleven, nine, seven, and five, who were removed from her custody due to ongoing domestic violence by their father. S.G. appealed a December 20, 2023 order denying her motion to appoint a psychological expert to perform a bonding study under Evidence Code section 730. This request was made before an 18-month review hearing while she was still receiving reunification services. The juvenile court denied the motion, partly on the ground that it was improper to appoint an expert to aid S.G. in her defense and possibly because the request was deemed unripe during ongoing reunification services.The juvenile court initially declared the three older children dependents on February 27, 2020, due to domestic violence, allowing them to remain with S.G. with family maintenance services. On July 19, 2022, the youngest child was also declared a dependent. On September 29, 2022, all four children were removed from S.G.'s custody and placed in foster care. The court sustained a supplemental petition alleging continued contact between the parents and further domestic violence. Reunification services were ordered for S.G. but bypassed for the father. At the six-month and twelve-month review hearings, S.G.'s services were extended.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Two, reviewed the case. The court held that a parent may request, and the court must consider, the appointment of a psychological expert to aid the parent in dependency proceedings. The court found that the juvenile court erred in denying S.G.'s motion on the grounds that it was improper to aid her defense and possibly because it was premature. The appellate court vacated the order as to the two older children and remanded the matter for a new hearing, while dismissing the appeals concerning the two younger children as moot. View "In re P.S." on Justia Law

Gabriel M., a minor, was charged with murder, robbery, and active gang participation. The juvenile court ordered his transfer to adult criminal court under Welfare and Institutions Code section 707. Gabriel's counsel immediately informed the court of their intent to appeal the transfer and requested a stay of the criminal proceedings. The juvenile court initially granted the stay but later lifted it and transferred Gabriel, who was nearly 20 years old, to county jail. Gabriel then filed a petition for a writ of mandate challenging the lifting of the stay and his transfer to county jail.The juvenile court had ordered Gabriel detained in juvenile hall, but upon the prosecution's motion, the court transferred him to criminal court. Gabriel's counsel requested a stay of the criminal proceedings, which the court initially granted. However, the court later lifted the stay and ordered Gabriel transferred to county jail, citing his age and the seriousness of the charges. Gabriel's counsel objected, arguing that the stay could only be lifted upon Gabriel's request and that his transfer to an adult facility required a petition under section 208.5, which had not been filed.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two, reviewed the case. The court held that under section 801 and rule 5.770(e)(2), the juvenile court was required to stay the criminal court proceedings until the final determination of Gabriel's appeal and could only lift the stay upon Gabriel's request. The court also held that Gabriel's transfer to county jail without following the procedures set forth in section 208.5 was erroneous. The court granted Gabriel's petition, directing the juvenile court to reinstate the stay and vacate the order transferring him to county jail. The court allowed for the possibility of a new petition under section 208.5 to transfer Gabriel to an adult facility. View "Gabriel M. v. Superior Court" on Justia Law

Mother appealed the juvenile court’s jurisdiction findings and disposition order that removed her son, T.R., from her custody. The court found that Mother and Father had a history of violent altercations in T.R.’s presence, and that Mother’s behavior, including brandishing weapons, endangered T.R.’s safety. The court also found that Mother had mental and emotional challenges that rendered her incapable of providing regular care for T.R. Consequently, T.R. was declared a dependent child and removed from his parents.The Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (Department) filed a petition indicating that T.R. had no known Indian ancestry based on initial inquiries. However, the Department did not conduct a thorough ICWA inquiry with extended family members, and the juvenile court did not inquire about Mother’s possible Indian ancestry at subsequent hearings. While the appeal was pending, the juvenile court selected legal guardianship as the permanent plan for T.R. and terminated dependency jurisdiction. The Department moved to dismiss the appeal, arguing it was moot because Mother did not appeal the termination order.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Seven, reviewed the case. The court concluded that the juvenile court retains jurisdiction to ensure compliance with ICWA even after selecting legal guardianship and terminating dependency jurisdiction. The Department conceded that its ICWA inquiry was deficient. The Court of Appeal denied the motion to dismiss, conditionally affirmed the juvenile court’s order, and remanded the case with directions for the Department to comply with ICWA’s inquiry and notice provisions. The court emphasized the ongoing duty to inquire about T.R.’s possible Indian ancestry and ensure full compliance with ICWA. View "In re T.R." on Justia Law

Santiago Gonzalo Canales was convicted of lewd acts and continuous sexual abuse of children, specifically his stepdaughter and niece, both under the age of 14 during the abuse. Canales's niece testified that he molested her from ages seven to 13, while his stepdaughter testified that he began molesting her when she was about 11, including vaginal penetration. Canales denied all allegations.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County convicted Canales on all counts and found true the multiple victims allegations. He was sentenced to 60 years to life in prison, consisting of four consecutive sentences of 15 years to life.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, reviewed the case. Canales challenged two jury instructions: CALCRIM No. 1120 and CALCRIM No. 252. The court upheld the use of CALCRIM No. 1120, stating it correctly reflected the statutory requirements for continuous sexual abuse, which did not necessitate a heightened mental state for "substantial sexual conduct." The court acknowledged an error in CALCRIM No. 252 but deemed it harmless beyond a reasonable doubt due to the overwhelming evidence of Canales's guilt. Canales's argument regarding the unanimity instruction was forfeited as he did not raise it during the trial.The court agreed with Canales and the prosecution that his sentence violated ex post facto principles because the One Strike law, which enhanced his sentence, did not apply to his offenses against his stepdaughter, which occurred before the law was amended to include continuous sexual abuse. Consequently, the court vacated Canales's sentence and remanded the case for resentencing without applying the One Strike law. View "People v. Canales" on Justia Law

Juan A., a teenager and dependent of the juvenile court, was removed from parental custody and placed in long-term foster care after the court found he was not adoptable and no one was willing to be his legal guardian. The court terminated family reunification services but did not terminate parental rights. Juan attended many hearings during his dependency case but was not present at the status review hearing that is the subject of this appeal. At that hearing, the court denied Juan’s trial counsel’s request for a brief continuance to allow Juan to be present, which was found to be an error as Juan had a right to be present under Welfare and Institutions Code section 349.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County declared Juan a dependent of the court in January 2020, removed him from parental custody, and ordered family reunification services for his mother. In August 2021, the court terminated these services. At a section 366.26 review hearing in June 2023, the court decided not to terminate parental rights, finding Juan not adoptable and no potential legal guardians available. The court ordered Juan to remain in foster care with permanent placement services. In March 2024, the court denied a continuance request for Juan to attend the permanency planning review hearing, found his placement appropriate, and scheduled the next review hearing for September 2024.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division One, reviewed the case and found that the juvenile court erred in denying the continuance request, as Juan had a statutory right to be present at the hearing. The court held that this error prejudiced Juan, as his presence could have allowed him to request additional services to improve his academic performance and employment prospects. The appellate court reversed the orders issued at the March 28, 2024 hearing and remanded the case for a new status review hearing in accordance with section 349. View "In re Juan A." on Justia Law

James Lamont Bagsby was convicted and sentenced to 107 years to life for violent crimes committed at age 15. After serving over 15 years, he petitioned for recall and resentencing under Penal Code section 1170(d), which applies to juveniles sentenced to life without parole. Bagsby argued his sentence was the functional equivalent of life without parole, citing People v. Heard, which held that denying such juveniles the opportunity to petition for resentencing violates equal protection. The trial court agreed, granted his petition, and ordered his release, but stayed the release pending appeal.The People appealed, asking the Court of Appeal to strike down the section 1170(d) resentencing provision or reconsider Heard. They also contended the trial court had jurisdiction to resentence Bagsby and erred by ordering his release. Bagsby cross-appealed the stay order.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, affirmed the trial court's orders. The court upheld Heard, finding no compelling reason to overturn it. The court rejected the People's arguments, noting that the Legislature had not repealed section 1170(d) despite amendments and that the trial court correctly applied Proposition 57 and Senate Bill 1391 retroactively, making Bagsby's judgment nonfinal and outside juvenile court jurisdiction. The court also found the stay order would expire upon remittitur, making Bagsby's release effective as of the original release date for custody credit purposes. View "P. v. Bagsby" on Justia Law

Baby Girl R. was born to S.R., who abandoned her shortly after birth. S.R. and Baby Girl R. were taken to a hospital where S.R. admitted to daily methamphetamine use, and Baby Girl R. tested positive for the drug. S.R. was placed on an involuntary psychiatric hold due to her mental state and left the hospital without Baby Girl R. The Santa Clara County Department of Family and Children’s Services (Department) initiated dependency proceedings, and Baby Girl R. was placed in protective custody. Despite diligent efforts, the Department could not locate S.R.The juvenile court placed Baby Girl R. in foster care and ordered reunification services for S.R., despite her unknown whereabouts. The Department recommended reunification services, noting it was S.R.’s first dependency case and her relatives wanted her to receive help. Counsel for Baby Girl R. objected, arguing that reunification services should be bypassed under Welfare and Institutions Code section 361.5, subdivision (b)(1), due to S.R.’s unknown whereabouts. The court, however, ordered reunification services and set a six-month review hearing.The California Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District, reviewed the case. The Department argued the appeal was moot because the juvenile court had since terminated reunification services and placed Baby Girl R. with her maternal grandparents. The appellate court agreed the appeal was moot but exercised discretion to address the merits. The court concluded that section 361.5, subdivision (b)(1), does not mandate bypassing reunification services when a parent’s whereabouts are unknown. The juvenile court has discretion to order reunification services in such cases. The appellate court found no error in the juvenile court’s decision to order reunification services for S.R. and affirmed the disposition order. View "In re Baby Girl R." on Justia Law

The case involves a father, H.B., who appealed a juvenile court's disposition order declaring his two sons dependents of the court, placing them in the custody of their mother, and granting family maintenance services to the mother and supportive services to the father. The San Francisco Human Services Agency filed a petition alleging that the minors were at substantial risk of harm due to the father's substance abuse and provision of drugs to one of the children. The juvenile court sustained the petition and ordered the children to remain with their mother while the father received supportive services.The juvenile court found that the father had a long history of substance abuse and had provided drugs to his son, which posed a substantial danger to the children. The court also noted the father's poor judgment and parenting skills. The court ordered the children to remain with their mother and granted the father supervised visitation and supportive services. The father argued that the court applied the wrong legal standard and that there was insufficient evidence to support the findings.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court found that the juvenile court erred in applying section 362(c) instead of section 361(c) of the Welfare and Institutions Code, which requires findings by clear and convincing evidence that there would be a substantial danger to the children if returned to the father's custody and that reasonable efforts were made to prevent removal. The appellate court concluded that substantial evidence supported the finding of substantial danger but not the finding that reasonable efforts were made to prevent removal. The court reversed the disposition order and remanded the case for a new disposition hearing. View "In re H.B." on Justia Law

In 2018 and 2019, a minor, J.S., committed a series of serious crimes, including seven street robberies, two burglaries, an attempted robbery resulting in murder, and the drugging and sexual assault of a 14-year-old girl. J.S. was 16 and 17 years old at the time of these offenses. The People filed an 18-count petition against J.S., including charges of murder, robbery, burglary, and sexual assault, and sought to transfer him to adult criminal court.The juvenile court in Ventura County conducted a transfer hearing and found that J.S. was not amenable to rehabilitation within the juvenile system's jurisdiction, which would expire when he turned 25. The court considered J.S.'s criminal sophistication, previous delinquent history, and the gravity of the offenses. Despite evidence of J.S.'s participation in rehabilitation programs and expert testimony suggesting potential for rehabilitation, the court concluded that the severity and premeditated nature of his crimes, along with his behavior in custody, indicated a need for prolonged treatment and supervision beyond the juvenile system's capacity.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Six, reviewed the juvenile court's decision for abuse of discretion. The appellate court affirmed the transfer order, agreeing that substantial evidence supported the juvenile court's findings. The appellate court emphasized that it does not reweigh evidence or substitute its discretion for that of the trial court. The court found that the juvenile court had appropriately considered the statutory criteria and expert testimony, and its conclusion that J.S. was not amenable to rehabilitation within the juvenile system was supported by clear and convincing evidence. View "People v. J.S." on Justia Law

Elizabeth T. was taking her three children to see their father when she fell on a bus after consuming alcohol. An anonymous caller reported her to the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS), alleging she was intoxicated and her children were neglected. Elizabeth denied being heavily intoxicated and claimed her children were well cared for. DCFS filed a petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b), alleging Elizabeth's substance abuse posed a risk to her children.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County sustained the petition, citing a prior sustained allegation of substance abuse from 2018. The court ordered informal supervision under section 360, subdivision (b). Elizabeth appealed, arguing that one incident of alcohol abuse did not support the finding that she posed a risk to her children at the time of the jurisdiction hearing.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court found that the evidence of the bus incident, along with the four-year-old allegation, did not support the finding that Elizabeth's conduct created a substantial risk of serious physical harm or illness to her children. The court noted that Elizabeth had cooperated with DCFS, submitted to drug and alcohol testing, and her children were healthy and well cared for. The court concluded that there was no substantial evidence of a current risk to the children and reversed the juvenile court's jurisdiction findings and disposition orders. View "In re Gilberto G." on Justia Law