| Case # | Name | Category | Court | Judge | Published | 
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 
 B301138 
 | 
Leah B. v. Michael V. 
 Appellant was not permitted to use civil harassment order process to collaterally attack confidential child dependency and adoption proceeding concerning her biological daughter.  | 
Dependency | 
 | 
K. Yegan | Oct. 23, 2020 | 
| 
 D075690 
 | 
County of San Diego v. P.B.
 Lower court improperly attributed nonexistent timeshare to guideline for child support calculation to penalize an allegedly non-cooperative parent.  | 
Dependency | 
 | 
P. Guerrero | Oct. 20, 2020 | 
| 
 B299987 
 | 
In re Anna T. 
 Juvenile court's post-termination custody orders were vacated because juvenile court failed to follow procedure outlined in Welfare and Institutions Code Section 362.4.  | 
Dependency | 
 | 
D. Perluss | Oct. 15, 2020 | 
| 
 D077177 
 | 
In re N.S.
 When ordering permanent plan for Indian child subject to Indian Child Welfare Act, juvenile court is not restricted to permanent plan that child's tribe selects.  | 
Dependency | 
 | 
C. Aaron | Oct. 12, 2020 | 
| 
 B302482 
 | 
In re Dominic F. 
 Substantial evidence supported the juvenile court's finding that the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 did not apply to minors.  | 
Dependency | 
 | 
M. Stratton | Oct. 8, 2020 | 
| 
 E074852 
 | 
In re S.S.
 Juvenile court's detriment finding was based on father's poverty, which is barred by statute and case law.  | 
Dependency | 
 | 
M. Slough | Oct. 6, 2020 | 
| 
 H047586 
 | 
In re J.P.
 Pursuant to Family Code Section 7642, juvenile court had authority to determine that its prior order denying presumed parent status should be modified.  | 
Dependency | 
 | 
E. Premo | Oct. 5, 2020 | 
| 
 B302700 
 | 
In re Samuel A.
 Trial court incorrectly characterized appellant's Welfare and Institutions Code Section 388 petition as untimely new trial motion under Code of Civil Procedure Section 659.  | 
Dependency | 
 | 
D. Perluss | Sep. 25, 2020 | 
| 
 A156550 
 | 
In re J.W.-P.
 Father was prejudiced by the trial court's failure to provide him with the notice of the procedure to protect his parental rights mandated by Welfare and Institutions Code Section 316.2(b).  | 
Dependency | 
 | 
G. Burns | Sep. 10, 2020 | 
| 
 B304209 
 | 
In re V.L.
 Reasonable trier of fact could have found it highly probable that placement of minors with father would pose substantial risk of harm by exposure to future domestic violence.  | 
Dependency | 
 | 
J. Ashmann-Gerst | Sep. 3, 2020 | 
| 
 B302248 
 | 
In re A.C. 
 The absence of a relationship between father and daughter was a permissible factor in juvenile court's decision to place daughter with grandmother.  | 
Dependency | 
 | 
J. Wiley | Sep. 1, 2020 | 
| 
 B301629 
 | 
Georgeanne G. v. Superior Court (Los Angeles County Dept. of Children and Family Services)
 Juvenile court may not consider a parent's 'lack of insight' at Welfare and Institutions Code Section 366.22 permanency review hearing.  | 
Dependency | 
 | 
D. Perluss | Aug. 21, 2020 | 
| 
 E074079 
 | 
In re J.W.
 The Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act does not regulate a California trial court's fundamental jurisdiction.  | 
Dependency | 
 | 
M. Raphael | Aug. 13, 2020 | 
| 
 G058814 
 | 
In re I.B.
 Trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding Mother demonstrated changed circumstances required under a Welfare and Institutions Code Section 388 petition.  | 
Dependency | 
 | 
K. O'Leary | Aug. 12, 2020 | 
| 
 B302804 
 | 
In re S.P. 
 Department of Children and Family Services failed to act with due diligence in notifying father of jurisdiction but error was harmless.  | 
Dependency | 
 | 
L. Rubin | Aug. 4, 2020 | 
| 
 F080612 
 | 
Serena M. v. Superior Court (Fresno County Dept. of Social Services)
 Juvenile court's order denying in-person visitation from mother was not reasonable because evidence did not support depriving mother of in-person visitation for 18-month period.  | 
Dependency | 
 | 
M. Snauffer | Jul. 28, 2020 | 
| 
 B293453 
 | 
In re T.S. 
 Evidence regarding custody and visitation are necessarily relevant to custody proceeding; thus court was empowered to modify prior orders, even absent Welfare and Institutions Code Section 388 petition.  | 
Dependency | 
 | 
D. Perluss | Jul. 23, 2020 | 
| 
 B298473 
 | 
In re J.M. 
 Parent's reformation efforts may overcome presumption that her son remaining in stable and potentially permanent foster home is in his best interests.  | 
Dependency | 
 | 
F. Rothschild | Jun. 22, 2020 | 
| 
 B292172 
 | 
Conservatorship of Jose B. 
 Requirement under Lanterman-Petris-Short Act that trial must commence within 10 days of demand is directive, not mandatory.  | 
Dependency | 
 | 
G. Feuer | Jun. 22, 2020 | 
| 
 B303804 
 | 
In re B.P.
 Orders issued before dispositional order on Welfare and Institutions Code Section 342 petition are interlocutory and not appealable.  | 
Dependency | 
 | 
T. Bigelow | Jun. 4, 2020 | 
| 
 B300065 
 | 
In re Samantha H. 
 It is not required in adoption proceedings to inquire whether a willing adoptive parent was first advised but rejected guardianship.  | 
Dependency | 
 | 
M. Stratton | May 28, 2020 | 
| 
 E073284 
 | 
In re E.E.
 Dependency jurisdiction does not require actual neglect; rather there must be a 'substantial risk' that the child will be neglected.  | 
Dependency | 
 | 
M. Slough | May 26, 2020 | 
| 
 B298750 
 | 
Modification: In re D.B.
 Father's violence, verbal abuse, racism, impulsivity, and lack of insight created substantial evidence that daughter faced substantial risk of serious emotional damage.  | 
Dependency | 
 | 
J. Wiley | May 21, 2020 | 
| 
 B301285 
 | 
In re K.T.
 Substantial evidence did not support finding that non-offending Father needed to take parenting course in order to protect daughter.  | 
Dependency | 
 | 
F. Rothschild | May 15, 2020 | 
| 
 A157256 
 | 
In re Mary C.
 Courts are not required to find children 'generally' adoptable, rather the children must 'likely' be adopted within a reasonable time.  | 
Dependency | 
 | 
J. Streeter | May 7, 2020 | 
| 
 B298750 
 | 
In re D.B. 
 Father's violence, verbal abuse, racism, impulsivity, and lack of insight created substantial evidence that daughter faced substantial risk of serious emotional damage.  | 
Dependency | 
 | 
J. Wiley | May 6, 2020 | 
| 
 E073131 
 | 
In re S.O.
 No joint recommendation report was required under Welfare and Institution code Section 241.1 because the matter was three years into dual status jurisdiction.  | 
Dependency | 
 | 
A. McKinster | May 6, 2020 | 
| 
 F079971 
 | 
In re M.R. 
 Dependency case plans must specifically identify how services will accomplish specific goals; broad language recommending future unknown services is insufficient.  | 
Dependency | 
 | 
C. Poochigian | May 1, 2020 | 
| 
 E072514 
 | 
In re G.C. 
 Substantial evidence supported juvenile court's order removing children from parents' custody.  | 
Dependency | 
 | 
D. Miller | Apr. 28, 2020 | 
| 
 B296810 
 | 
In re Aubrey T.
 Evidence was insufficient to support juvenile court's finding that father abandoned daughter within meaning of Family Code Section 7822.  | 
Dependency | 
 | 
L. Zelon | Apr. 28, 2020 | 
