Case Summaries

Family Law

[08/27] David L. v. Superior Ct. of Orange County
Regarding juvenile court order setting a new permanent plan selection and implementation hearing, petition for writ of mandate and request for stay are denied where: 1) section 366.3, which provides for a new 366.26 hearing for children under the guardianship, does not require a modification petition; and 2) the prima facie evidence supported the juvenile court's decision to set a 366.26 hearing.

[08/27] Sheri T. v. Superior Ct. of Orange County
Petition seeking extraordinary relief from juvenile court order setting new permanent plan selection hearing is denied where: 1) order setting a new permanent plan selection hearing was correct; 2) when circumstances have changed, the court should hold a permanent plan selection hearing unless the mother proves there is a compelling reason not to do so; and 3) the mother cannot show prejudice from the juvenile court's decision to hold a new permanent plan selection hearing and she will have an opportunity to fully litigate the issues at that time.

[08/22] In re A.C.
Order terminating parental rights is affirmed where: 1) the dependency court's noncompliance with section 372 standing alone does not violate the parent's due process rights; and 2) the error is subject to a harmless error standard.

[08/22] Iglesias v. Mukasey
Petition for review of BIA's denial of motion to reopen the case is denied where: 1) petitioner's allegation that BIA had ignored evidence put forth by petitioner regarding his marriage to an American citizen was an allegation of legal error subject to appellate review; but 2) petitioner did not provide clear and convincing evidence that his marriage was bona fide.

[08/21] Combs v. Homer-Center Sch. Dist.
In a suit by parents who home-school their children seeking declaratory relief and a permanent injunction to prohibit the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania from requiring plaintiffs to comply with reporting and review requirements, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) the challenged statute was a neutral law of general applicability, subject to rational basis review, and was constitutional as it rationally furthered legitimate state interests; 2) plaintiffs did not assert a valid "hybrid-rights" claim under which, as a potential violation of both free-exercise rights and the parental right to direct a child's education, the law might be subject to greater scrutiny; 3) plaintiffs' claims did not fall under the narrow exception of Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972), requiring heightened scrutiny when parents challenge compulsory-education laws on religious grounds; and 4) having disposed of all federal claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims under the Religious Freedom Protection Act.

[08/21] US v. Carson
Sentence for conspiring to transport a minor across state lines for the purpose of unlawful sexual activity and interstate travel to engage in illicit sexual conduct is affirmed where, for purposes of applying a sentencing enhancement, the minor victim was properly determined to be in defendant's custody, care, or supervisorial control, despite argument that the victim's mother's presence gave her sole custody and control.

[08/20] In re Adrianna P.
Order granting reunification services to presumed father is remanded with orders to vacate where: 1) the record made clear that providing reunification services to father would be detrimental to the child; and 2) the court abused its discretion when it ordered agency to provide reunification services to father. Order directing agency to provide reunification services to other presumed father is affirmed where: 1) despite court's erroneous legal conclusion regarding section 361.5, the court did not abuse its discretion with this order; and 2) there was sufficient evidence to support the court's implied finding that reunification was in the children's best interests.

[08/19] In re Aaron D.
Termination of mother's parental rights to her two children is affirmed over claims of error that: 1) the juvenile court lacked jurisdiction over this case under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) because Texas had jurisdiction over custody determinations involving the children and the California juvenile court did not contact the Texas court to resolve jurisdiction; 2) mother did not receive proper notice of the Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.261 selection and implementation hearing; and 3) the court erred in finding the children adoptable because of their special developmental needs, physical ailments, and psychosocial issues.

[08/19] In re David H.
Minor's removal from his mother's home is affirmed where there was substantial evidence that, at the time of a July 2007 hearing, the child faced a substantial risk of serious physical harm from mother because there was a substantial risk that mother would resort to physical violence in disciplining him.

[08/14] Lemons v. Bradbury
In an action brought by voters who signed a referendum, which sought a statewide vote on a legislative act establishing same-sex domestic partnerships, challenging the Oregon Secretary of State's procedures for verifying referendum petition signatures, denial of permanent injunctive relief for plaintiffs is affirmed where the Secretary's procedures for verifying sampled referendum petition signatures did not violate plaintiffs' equal protection and due process rights.

More...