Family Law

[11/19] Perry v. Prop. 8 Official Proponents
In an action challenging the constitutionality of Proposition 8, a California ballot initiative restricting the definition of marriage to the union of a man and a woman, denial of a prospective intervenor's application to intervene is affirmed where the existing parties would adequately represent its interests.

[11/19] In re Marriage of Kacik
Trial court's order modifying support, where the child support order ended in August 2006 and no modification request was brought until February 2008, is reversed as: 1) it cannot be sustained on the basis of Family Code section 4326 and 2) where section 4326 was the sole basis for the modification, the order cannot be sustained at all.

[11/10] Burke v. County of Alameda
In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action alleging that defendants interfered with plaintiffs' constitutional right of familial association by removing their child without a protective custody warrant, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed in part where it was reasonable for officer-defendant to believe the child's statement that she had been abused at the time she spoke with him. However, the order is vacated in part where local government units such as defendant-county are not entitled to the qualified-immunity defense.

[11/06] In re: Smith
Order of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel reversing an order of the Bankruptcy Court is affirmed as a late alimony payment penalty was not a domestic support obligation, and as such, the ex-wife's claim was a general unsecured claim not entitled to priority status and consequently dischargeable.

[11/04] Miller v. Nichols
In plaintiffs' constitutional challenge to the state's removal of their child after termination proceedings and motion for injunctive relief to prevent a foster family's adoption of the child, district court's dismissal of the case is affirmed where: 1) the district court correctly determined that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to review plaintiffs' motion for injunctive relief to prevent the child's adoption pursuant to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine; and 2) the factual issues underlying plaintiffs' claims were addressed by the state court and are barred by issue preclusion.

[10/30] M.T. v. Sup. Ct.
Petitioner's request for an extraordinary writ review of a juvenile court's order for a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing to consider modifying the permanent plan for two of his three children from long-term foster care to adoption is denied as petitioner did not have a right to a contested hearing.

[10/27] In re Calvin P.
Juvenile court's decision requiring the San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency to provide family maintenance services for plaintiff and her children is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) the order requiring family maintenance services for father and the children is affirmed; but 2) the order for family maintenance services for mother is reversed and instead ordered that she be provided reasonable reunification services.

[10/26] In re J.B.
Juvenile court's findings and orders regarding defendant's two children is affirmed as there was sufficient evidence to support the jurisdictional findings and the orders removing the children from her custody.

[10/23] Long v. Teachers' Ret. Sys. of State of Illinois
In plaintiff's employment discrimination and retaliation action against her former employer, summary judgment in favor of defendant is affirmed where, because plaintiff failed to present evidence that defendant acted with retaliatory intent when it fired her, a jury could not infer that defendant fired her because she took FMLA leave.

[10/21] Green v. Mattingly
In an action claiming that defendants violated the U.S. Constitution and New York law when they successfully petitioned the family court of New York for an order temporarily removing plaintiff's child from her custody, dismissal of the action is vacated in part where: 1) the family court issued a superseding order returning plaintiff's child to her custody, and the family court proceedings were eventually dismissed, so plaintiff was not a "state-court loser" under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine; and 2) in addition, her claims did not "invite district court review and rejection" of a state court judgment. However, the dismissal is affirmed in part where plaintiff failed to allege that the family court proceeding was terminated in her favor and thus did not state a malicious prosecution claim.

[10/20] In re R.N.
Dependency court's order appointing minor's aunt as the successor guardian and a separate order summarily denying father's subsequent Welfare & Institutions Code section 388 petition challenging the appointment is reversed as the failure to consider the provisions of section 366.3(f) deprived father of his rights to participate, to be considered as the guardian, and to be eligible to receive reunification services without the requirement that he file his own section 388 petition.

[10/08] In re Damian C.
In a case brought by the Health and Human Services Agency to remove defendant's one-year-old son on the basis of her drug use, trial court's jurisdictional and dispositional orders are affirmed, but the matter is remanded to the juvenile court to vacate its finding that the ICWA does not apply and to instruct the agency to complete ICWA inquiry and notice.

[10/07] In re J.O.
In dependency proceedings, trial court's jurisdictional findings and orders that pertained to plaintiff despite having ruled that he was not the presumed father, are affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded where: 1) the evidence established plaintiff's presumed father status; 2) the finding of jurisdiction under Welfare and Institutions Code, section 300(b) is reversed as there is no causal nexus between the court's findings of serious injury and the findings relating to plaintiff; 3) court's finding of jurisdiction under section 300(g) is affirmed as it is supported by plaintiff's failure to provide financial support for over a decade combined with his demonstrated lack of interest in the children's welfare; and 4) on remand, the trial court must make the inquiry concerning plaintiff's possible Indian ancestry required by ICWA and the California Rules of Court.

[10/06] In re Marriage of Knowles
Trial court's modification of the father's child support obligation is reversed and remanded as the court violated Family Code section 4057.5(a)(1) by considering the half of the community income attributable to the father's subsequent spouse.

[09/30] Pryor v. Pryor
Trial court's order dismissing plaintiff's petition to annul the marriage of her late father, comedian Richard Pryor, and her stepmother is affirmed as she lacks standing to petition to annul the marriage.

[09/30] Cooney v. Rossiter
In plaintiff's case against several defendants arising from a custody case in which the Illinois state court found that she suffered from Munchausen syndrome by proxy, district court's dismissal of her suit is affirmed where: 1) guardians ad litem and court-appointed experts, including psychiatrists, are absolutely immune from liability for damages when they act at the court's direction; 2) no factual allegations tie the defendants, who are private individuals, to a conspiracy with a state actor; and 3) district court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff's Rule 59(e) motion.

[09/29] Estate of Pryor
In an appeal involving presumptive disqualification of a care custodian from receiving a donative transfer from a dependent or elder adult, trial court's judgment against the daughter of comedian Richard Pryor and in favor of stepmother is affirmed as there is no support in the language of section 21351(a) or in the legislative history which would make the spousal exception to the presumption of invalidity unavailable to a spouse who allegedly persuaded the transferor to marry through undue influence or fraud.

[09/23] Manela v. Superior Court
In a marital dissolution action involving a discovery dispute over child custody, wife's petition for mandate, challenging a trial court's granting of the husband's motion to quash wife's subpoenas of medical records on the ground that the documents were protected by the physician-patient privilege, is granted in part and denied in part where: 1) the trial court abused its discretion by quashing the subpoena to a doctor where the statements were made in the wife's presence and therefore not protected by the privilege; 2) the husband's claim that his medical records are protected by his constitutional right to privacy is rejected as this right is not absolute and his privacy interests are outweighed by the state's compelling interest in protecting the child's best interests; and 3) the trial court did not abuse its discretion with respect to quashing the subpoena to a subsequent doctor because the documents sought by the wife were privileged.

[09/18] S.T. v. Superior Court
Petition for extraordinary writ by an incarcerated father to vacate the order of a juvenile court issued at a hearing terminating his reunification services and setting a permanency planning hearing as to his daughter is granted as trial court has discretion at the six-month review to continue or terminate reunification services.

[09/09] In re G.L.
Judgment declaring plaintiff's minor daughter a dependent of the juvenile court under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300(a) and (b) and removing the minor from parental custody is affirmed where: 1) the Indian Child Welfare Act's (ICWA) notice requirements for an Indian custodian were not violated; 2) to the limited extent the paternal grandmother's rights as the minor's Indian custodian were implicated, any error was harmless; and 3) there was substantial evidence to support the court's finding that good cause existed to deviate from ICWA's statutory placement preferences.

Back to Main Menu