Justia California Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Eight-year-old Katherine was in dependency court for five years while her parents struggled with significant ongoing issues of domestic violence and substance abuse. Following multiple failed efforts at reunification, the juvenile court terminated services and the parental rights of both parents rejecting her father’s claim of a “beneficial parental relationship” (Welfare and Institutions Code 366.26(c)(1)(B)(i)). While recognizing that he had maintained regular visitation, the juvenile court concluded that these visits created only an “incidental benefit” to Katherine, while his ongoing instability had caused additional instability and trauma.The court of appeal affirmed, noting that the father had previously concealed a crash caused by driving under the influence and then refused to implement protective measures for Katherine’s benefit. He refused to move out of his parents’ home, which resulted in a series of abrupt changes in Katherine’s placement. He physically assaulted his mother, in the presence of Katherine, resulting in multiple facial injuries requiring medical assistance, which he concealed and downplayed. Katherine had confided at times she feared her father and did not want to speak to him. The negative impact of the father’s unresolved issues on Katherine was antithetical to the kind of beneficial parental relationship required by section 366.26. View "In re Katherine J." on Justia Law

The victim was listening to earphones and looking at his cell phone while walking. He saw individuals with bicycles outside of a 7-Eleven. Minutes later, someone tapped him on one side while another individual, on a bicycle on the other side, grabbed his cell phone. The victim chased and tackled him. After the victim released the thief, someone punched the victim. The victim was surrounded by three individuals in hoodies who were yelling at him. The victim’s boss arrived on the scene; the three left. Police quickly arrested three minors with bicycles: Kevin, age 15, Angel, who had the cell phone in his backpack, and Armando. The victim identified Angel as having taken his phone, and Armando as having punched him. The victim had trouble identifying Kevin.A juvenile wardship petition alleged that Kevin committed second-degree robbery. The victim identified Kevin in court and recalled seeing Kevin among the people at the 7- Eleven and as one of the people who yelled at him after he tackled Angel. The victim otherwise had no clear memory of Kevin. He did not know whether Kevin was there when his phone was taken. The juvenile court sustained the petition, finding that Kevin had aided and abetted the robbery. The court of appeal reversed. The determination was not supported by substantial evidence. View "In re K.M." on Justia Law

After the juvenile court removed her from her parents at eight weeks old, Abigail lived with Heather for almost two years. The juvenile court declared Abigail a dependent child of the court and denied her parents family reunification services. Abigail had a 12-year-old half-sister, Anahi, who was also a dependent of the juvenile court. Heather let Anahi move in with her and Abigail. The relationship deteriorated. Anahi and Heather made allegations against each other. Anahi was ultimately placed with her aunt and uncle in Arizona. Heather filed a request for de facto parent status with respect to Abigail. The Department would not recommend Heather as the prospective adoptive parent of Abigail and notified Heather it intended to place Abigail with Anahi in Arizona. The court placed Abigail on an extended visit with Anahi in Arizona, denied Heather’s request for de facto parent status, and described her motion as “moot.” Abigail has been placed with Anahi’s relatives in Arizona since November 2020.The court of appeal reversed. Heather’s request was not moot and she did not receive proper notice of the hearing. She retains a limited interest in “the companionship, care, custody and management” of Abigail, which was not extinguished when the juvenile court placed Abigail with Anahi’s relatives. View "In re Abigail L." on Justia Law

After Cesar, who was then 17 years old and who did not have a driver’s license, pleaded no contest to allegations of alcohol-related reckless driving, he was adjudged a ward of the court and placed on probation subject to conditions, including that he submit to warrantless searches for alcohol and controlled substances and attend DUI programs.The court of appeal upheld the warrantless search condition, rejecting Cesar’s argument that the condition imposed a heavy burden on his privacy with little justification. The court noted that after he started drinking alcohol at age 16, Cesar would regularly engage in binge drinking. Cesar continued to drink and purchase alcohol after the crash and his arrest. He rejected his parents’ efforts to impose limits on his conduct. The search condition is reasonably related to Cesar’s future criminality. The juvenile court could not order Cesar to pay for his attendance at the DUI-related programs, so the court erred in declining to order the probation department to pay the fees for the DUI programs Cesar was required to attend. View "In re Cesar G." on Justia Law

Leon, age 15, was declared a ward of the juvenile court after admitting to six felonies, including sex crimes. He was placed at a residential treatment facility. Leon turned 18 years old and was returned to juvenile hall after a probation violation. He was later committed to the Youthful Offender Treatment Program. Leon then transitioned into juvenile court as a nonminor dependent through the extended foster care program and entered into a transitional independent living plan, which required him to attend an education program, or be employed. In 2019, Leon moved into a transitional housing placement plus foster care (THP+FC) facility. The juvenile court later terminated Leon’s nonminor dependency, finding that he was not participating in AB12 in good faith and was not residing in his THP+FC placement. California's Fostering Connections to Success Act (AB12), allows nonminor dependents to remain under juvenile court dependency jurisdiction and receive financial assistance until age 21 if they comply with statutory requirements. Leon is now 21 years old.The court of appeal concluded the appeal is not moot because a reversal could still afford Leon effective relief in the form of certain documentation. While the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in finding that Leon failed to meet AB12 eligibility requirements, the order terminating dependency jurisdiction must be remanded to ensure compliance with the procedural requirements of section 391(a)–(c), (h) in the form of the provision of certain information, documents, and services. View "In re Leon E." on Justia Law

The children, born in 2016 and 2017, were taken into protective custody in July 2020 after their younger sibling, R., suffered non-accidental fatal head injuries while in the care of their father. Continuances, due in part to the pandemic, significantly delayed the jurisdiction and disposition hearings, which took place in February and May 2021. The juvenile court found there was a substantial risk of detriment to the children if returned to Mother’s care, ordered their removal from her physical custody, and ordered family reunification services for her. The court granted the Department of Family and Children’s Services' unopposed request to combine the six-month and 12-month review hearings. While the appeal was pending, the juvenile court held the 18-month review hearing and returned the children to Mother on a plan of family maintenance.The court of appeal affirmed. in light of the strict statutory limits set out in the dependency scheme, Mother failed to establish error with respect to combining the six-month and 12-month hearings. Mother’s claim that she faces the potential loss of a full and fair opportunity to reunify in the event the children are removed again is not ripe for review. Mother has not shown that her trial counsel’s failure to object to the setting of the combined review hearing was deficient or prejudicial. View "In re M.F." on Justia Law

In November 2018, the Santa Clara County Department of Family and Children’s Services filed a petition (Welfare and Institutions Code section 3001) relative to three-year-old A.L. A.L. was living with her father; she was placed into protective custody after her father left A.L. with a daycare provider for several days without making arrangements for her care. Father was in custody. The Department could not locate A.L.’s mother. In March 2019, the juvenile court declared A.L. a dependent child, removed her from her father’s care, and ordered family reunification services. Father received services for 16 months. In July 2020, the court terminated those services and scheduled a selection and implementation hearing (section 366.26). Father then filed a section 388 petition. seeking the return of A.L. to his care. In January 2021, after a combined hearing on the 388 petition and selection and implementation, the court found A.L. adoptable and terminated the father’s parental rights.The court of appeal affirmed, rejecting arguments that the juvenile court abused its discretion in denying the father’s claim of the beneficial parental relationship exception to adoption and did not apply the correct legal standard by basing its determination that the exception did not apply on the finding that father did not occupy a strong parental role in A.L’s life. View "In re A.L." on Justia Law

The court of appeal affirmed an order terminating parental rights over eight-year-old Eli and his sister, seven-year-old A.B., who have been living together in foster care for nearly four years. After noting that the father has died, the court proceeded on the merits and rejected an argument that the juvenile court erred in declining to apply the beneficial relationship exception concerning either parent. In light of all of the circumstances, the juvenile court had the discretion to weigh the harms and benefits of terminating the mother’s parental rights in the manner that it did, even if the children had a significant, positive emotional bond to her. Substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s determination that the mother did not prove the existence of a significant, positive emotional attachment with either child. The juvenile court could infer from one violent incident, and the lack of judgment mother displayed on that occasion with a different child, that her anger and inability to control her aggression could potentially have a detrimental influence on Eli’s and A.B.’s mental health, if not also their physical safety were she ever to expose them to continued domestic violence. View "In re Eli B." on Justia Law

Defendant Allen Benzler was sentenced in 2014 for offenses he committed when he was 18 years old. He appealed the summary denial of his motion for a "Franklin" hearing under California Penal Code section 1203.01, contending he satisfied the eligibility criteria for such a hearing laid out in In re Cook, 7 Cal.5th 439 (2019), and did not previously have an opportunity to present evidence related to his status as a juvenile offender. To this, the Court of Appeal concurred, reversed the trial court’s order, and remanded the matter for further proceedings. View "California v. Benzler" on Justia Law

Scarlett was born in Honduras in 2013. Her family moved to the United States in 2015. The Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services received a referral claiming that her father, Franklin, had attacked her mother, Karen. The Department filed a Welfare and Institutions Code 300(a), (b)(1) petition. The court found true the allegations that, because of multiple instances of domestic violence, and because Franklin had hit Scarlett with a belt, Franklin placed Scarlett at risk of serious physical harm and Karen failed to protect her.Scarlett subsequently filed a request for Special Immigrant Juvenile (SIJ) findings under Code of Civil Procedure 155.1. A child is eligible for SIJ status if: the child is a dependent of a juvenile court, in the custody of a state agency by court order, or in the custody of an individual or entity appointed by the court; the child cannot reunify with one or both parents due to abuse, neglect, abandonment, or a similar basis; and it is not in the child’s best interest to return to his or her home country or the home country of her parents. The juvenile court denied the request, ruling the findings were “discretionary.” The court of appeal reversed. The lower court was required to consider the evidence submitted and Scarlett submitted unimpeached and uncontradicted evidence that required the court to enter an order with the findings Scarlett requested under section 155. View "In re Scarlett V." on Justia Law