Case Summaries

Family Law

[06/03] Morales-Garcia v. Holder
Petitioner's petition for review of the BIA's denial of his application for withholding of removal is granted, where the BIA erred in holding that Petitioner's conviction under Cal. Penal Code section 273.5(a) for corporal injury was categorically a crime involving moral turpitude.

[06/03] Catholic League for Relig. and Civ. Rts. v. City and County of San Francisco
In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action claiming that a city resolution disapproving of the Catholic Church's position on same-sex adoptions violated the Establishment Clause, the dismissal of the complaint is affirmed where the resolution did not have a predominantly religious purpose or an effect of expressing hostility towards the Catholic religion.

[06/03] In re S.B.
Juvenile court order terminating parental rights is affirmed the Department of Children and Family services gave proper Indian Child Welfare Act notice and no tribe sought to intervene.

[06/03] In re Carlos T.
In a juvenile dependency action, juvenile court order is affirmed where: 1) the court's finding that the minor was a dependent child under Welfare and Institutions Code sec. 300 (d) based upon father's sexual abuse and mother's failure to protect was supported by substantial evidence; and 2) the juvenile court reasonably found that both children were at substantial risk of abuse.

[06/03] Brandon S. v. State of California
In claim for emotional and physical injuries caused by negligent supervision resulting in molestation, trial court judgment is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff's claim under the Foster Family Home and Small Family Home Insurance Fund (the Fund) fails as Health and Safety Code sec. 1527.3 (a) states that the Fund is not liable for any loss arising out of a criminal act, whether that act is committed by the foster parent or a third party.

[05/28] In re S.B.
Court of Appeals judgment is reversed where Welfare and Institutions Code sec. 366.26, which authorizes the juvenile court to find that adoption of a dependent child is probable but difficult and orders a search for an appropriate adoptive family, is appealable, as there is no persuasive reason for excepting sec. 366.26 orders from the usual rule of appealability in dependency proceedings.

[05/28] In re Samuel G.
In a juvenile dependency action, juvenile court order is affirmed where the court properly ordered the San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency to pay for the travel of a dependent child's court appointed educational representative to visit him at his out-of-county placement.

[05/27] S.W. v. Superior Court of Orange County
In a juvenile dependency action, petition for writ of mandate challenging a juvenile court order is denied where the court did not err in terminating reunification services and setting a Welfare and Institutions Code 366.26 hearing, as the undisputed evidence that father did not visit his daughter during the six-month review period sufficiently supported the court's finding that father did not meet the "contact and visit" requirement of sec. 366.21(e).

[05/27] In re N.M.
In a juvenile dependency action, juvenile court order setting a permanent plan of legal guardianship and appointing a nonrelative as the minor's legal guardian instead of the minor's paternal grandmother is affirmed where substantial evidence supported the juvenile court's finding of good cause to deviate from the preference of the Indian tribe, the ICWA expert, and the Department of Health and Human Services and place the minor with a non-relative.

[05/26] Strauss v. Horton
California's Proposition 8, the initiative measure changing the official designation of the term "marriage" for the union of opposite-sex couples, constitutes a permissible change to the California Constitution, as Prop. 8: 1) is a constitutional amendment and not a constitutional revision; 2) does not violate the separation of powers doctrine; and 3) is not invalid under the "inalienable rights" theory proffered by the Attorney General. Prop. 8 and the new section in the Constitution cannot properly be interpreted to apply retroactively, and therefore the marriages of same-sex couples performed prior to the effective date of Prop. 8 remain valid and must continue to be recognized in the state.

More...