California Court of Appeal Court Cases

Search
  1. In Re Autumn H. (1994)

    Alan H. appeals after the court changed his dependent daughter Autumn H.'s permanent plan from long-term foster care to adoption and terminated Alan's parental rights under Welfare and Institutions Code[1] section 366.26. Alan contends the exception to termination of parental rights in section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(A), is unconstitutionally vague because it does not define the word "benefit." Alan further contends there was substantial evidence showing his daughter derived benefit from [...]

    Court: California Court of Appeal Docket: D020708
  2. In Re Casey D. (1999)

    Daria D. and Vincent D., the parents of Casey D., appeal the court's denial of their Welfare and Institutions Code[1] section 388 petitions seeking custody of Casey or a plan of long-term foster care and the court's decision to terminate their parental rights.


    Court: California Court of Appeal Docket: D031252
  3. In Re Jasmine D. (2000)

    Here we consider an issue that often arises when a juvenile dependency proceeding reaches the stage at which a permanent plan must be selected for an adoptable child. If a parent has maintained a good relationship with the child through visitation, is that a reason to select a plan less permanent than adoption? This court has interpreted a former statute governing permanency planning as requiring the juvenile court to find the child would not benefit from continuing the parental relationship [...]

    Court: California Court of Appeal Docket: A086822
  4. In Re Angel B. (2002)

    Teia Z. (Mother) appeals from two orders of the juvenile court. One order, entered nunc pro tunc on May 30, 2001 (the nunc pro tunc order itself was made on July 31, 2001) denied her Welfare & Institutions Code section 388 petition,[1] and on August 8, 2001, the juvenile court terminated Mother's parental rights to Angel B. (Angel). Mother appealed from both orders, and those appeals were consolidated on October 4, 2001 for resolution here.


    Court: California Court of Appeal Docket: B150872, B152814
  5. In Re LYL (2002)

    L.L. appeals a judgment terminating her parental rights to her daughter, L.Y.L., under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26.[1] L. contends she established two exceptions to terminating parental rights: the recently enacted section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(E) sibling relationship exception and the section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(A) beneficial relationship exception. She also contends she received ineffective assistance of counsel because her counsel did not object to the adoption [...]

    Court: California Court of Appeal Docket: D039515
  6. In Re Rocco M. (1991)

    This is an appeal from an order of the juvenile court adjudging Rocco M. a dependent child as described in Welfare and Institutions Code section 300,[1] subdivision (b). Rocco's mother, Catherine P., challenges the order on the grounds that (1) the court improperly took judicial notice of its file in previous proceedings concerning Rocco; and (2) the evidence was insufficient to support the finding of dependency. We affirm the order.


    Court: California Court of Appeal Docket: A050854
  7. Badie v. Bank of America (1998)

    Bank of America NT & SA, Office of General Counsel, John F. Cooney, Arne D. Wagner, Michael J. Halloran, San Francisco, Morrison & Foerster LLP, Seth M. Hufstedler, Kathleen V. Fisher, Carla B. Oakley, Jennifer Lee Taylor, San Francisco, for Defendant and Respondent.


    Court: California Court of Appeal Docket: A068753
  8. In Re Heather A. (1996)

    In this dependency case, Harold A. (Father), challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the jurisdiction and disposition orders made regarding his minor twin daughters, Helen A. (Helen) and Heather A. (Heather). He also asserts the court failed to put certain findings in the record. Part of the evidence before the dependency court focused on the concepts of secondary abuse and battered women's syndrome, as they relate to the children (or stepchildren, foster children, etc.) of [...]

    Court: California Court of Appeal Docket: B095308
  9. In Re Kimberly F. (1997)

    Like many juvenile dependency cases, this is a hard one. Doris F. lost custody of her two youngest children when, while caring for a nearly adult son with AIDS, social workers found her home to be dirty and unsanitary. By the time of the 18-month review, she was making progress, but not enough, so reunification services were terminated. But in the time between the 18-month review and the scheduled permanency planning hearing, she managed to show that she could keep her home in a sanitary [...]

    Court: California Court of Appeal Docket: G021018
  10. In Re IW (2009)

    D.W. (mother) appeals from a juvenile court judgment terminating her parental rights and selecting adoption as the permanent plan (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26)[1] concerning her son, I.W. (born 1998), and two daughters, Y.W. (born 2001) and A.W. (born 2003). She challenges the evidence supporting the juvenile court's finding that I.W. likely would be adopted and rejection of her evidence and argument that the case came with the exceptions to termination described by section 366.26, [...]

    Court: California Court of Appeal Docket: H034129
  11. In Re SC (2006)

    In 76,235 words, rambling and ranting over the opening brief's 202 pages, appellant's counsel has managed to violate rules of court; ignore standards of review; misrepresent the record; base arguments on matters not in the record on appeal; fail to support arguments with any meaningful analysis and citation to authority; raise an issue that is not cognizable in an appeal by her client; unjustly challenge the integrity of the opposing party; make a contemptuous attack on the trial judge; and [...]

    Court: California Court of Appeal Docket: C046784
  12. People v. Albarran (2007)

    Bill Lockyer and Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorneys General, Mary Jo Graves, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Kenneth N. Sokoler and Susan Lee Frierson, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.


    Court: California Court of Appeal Docket: B185547
  13. In Re Zachary G. (2000)

    Gala G. (Mother) filed a petition pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 388[1] (hereafter the section 388 petition), alleging changed circumstances and seeking to modify the order terminating reunification services for her child Zachary G. (Zachary). The court denied a hearing on the section 388 petition and thereafter terminated Mother's parental rights at the section 366.26 hearing (the .26 hearing). Mother contends both rulings were erroneous.


    Court: California Court of Appeal Docket: D033567
  14. People v. Samaniego (2009)

    Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Assistant Attorney General, Linda C. Johnson and Michael A. Katz, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.


    Court: California Court of Appeal Docket: B205512
  15. People v. Olguin (1994)

    Daniel E. Lungren, Attorney General, George Williamson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Gary W. Schons, Assistant Attorney General, Janelle B. Davis and Esteban Hernandez, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.


    Court: California Court of Appeal Docket: Docket Nos. G014071, G014235
  16. In Re Alexis E. (2009)

    In this dependency case (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 300 et seq.),[1] Patrick E., father of three dependent minor children (Father), appeals from a judgment of the juvenile court. He challenges the court's jurisdiction findings that he has a history of substance abuse, and that his current use of medical marijuana places the children at risk of harm.[2] Father also contends that the trial court, in its disposition order, has presented him with an untenable choice of either giving up his legal [...]

    Court: California Court of Appeal Docket: B207752
  17. In Re SB (2008)

    Michael B. appeals an order terminating his parental rights to his daughter, S.B., under Welfare and Institutions Code[1] section 366.26. He contends the court erred when it did not apply the exception to termination for parents who have continuing beneficial relationships with their dependent children. (Former § 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(A).)[2] Michael further contends the court did not comply with the notice provisions of the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA). (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.; [...]

    Court: California Court of Appeal Docket: D052202
  18. People v. Jones (2002)

    Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Jaime L. Fuster and Victoria B. Wilson, Supervising Deputy Attorneys General, Plaintiff and Respondent.


    Court: California Court of Appeal Docket: B154006
  19. Bowers v. Bernards (1984)

    By plaintiffs Bowers' action against defendant Bernards for specific performance of an agreement to sell certain real property (hereafter the property), or, in the alternative, for damages for breach of the agreement, the relief sought at the trial was specific performance alone. Judgment was entered in favor of defendant Bernards, from which judgment plaintiffs Bowers have appealed.


    Court: California Court of Appeal Docket: AO15585
  20. People v. Zackery (2007)

    Bill Lockyer and Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorneys General, Robert R. Anderson, Mary Jo Graves, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorneys General, J. Robert Jibson and Judy Kaida, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.


    Court: California Court of Appeal Docket: C051431

1 of 5691 Page(s)

Page:
  1. 2
  2. 3
  3. 4
  4. 5