California Family Law Opinions

Home Page -- Products -- Order Now -- Download Issue -- Contact Us

SPECIALTY LAW - California Family Law

California family law cases contained in the
Updated through August 28, 2005

The Main File, containing the full text of over 7,830 California family law cases dating back to 1941, is available on CD-ROM. Unpublished cases handed down after January, 2002 are also included. Case coverage includes such toptics as divorce, bigamy, spoual abuse, dissolution, child support and visitation, spousal maintenance, alimony, child neglect and dependency, adoption and parental rights. The database features full word-phrase search capabilities, no on-line charges, monthly internet updates, retrieval of cases by title or citation, network capability, a separate file of recent cases and the ability to print individual cases or save them to a word processing file. Recent cases contained in the Supplemental File are available on this web site. See below for Case Summaries. Full-text of cases is available only to subscribers.

For full-text coverage of California family law
Order Specialty Law CD-ROM for only $115

California Family Law Case Summaries

July 31 - August 28, 2005

June 26 - July 30, 2005

May 22 - June 25, 2005

April 17 - May 21, 2005

Click on data range to see summaries for those dates

California Family Law Case Summaries

July 31 - August 28, 2005, 2005

Click on case name to see how to access full text

Published

Koebke v. Bernardo Heights Country Club, 115 P.3d 1212, 31 Cal.Rptr.3d 565 (Cal. 08/01/2005)
Plaintiffs, a lesbian couple who are registered domestic partners, sued defendant country club, to which one of them belongs, alleging that the club's refusal to extend to them certain benefits it extends to married members of the club constitutes marital status discrimination under Civil Code section 51, familiarly known as the Unruh Civil Rights Act (the Unruh Act or Act ). The club obtained summary judgment on plaintiffs' marital status discrimination claim and the Court of Appeal affirmed. We granted review to determine whether the Unruh Act prohibits discrimination based on marital status. We conclude that marital status claims are cognizable under the Unruh Act, but, for purposes of such claims, a distinction exists between registered domestic partners (see Fam. Code, § 297 et. seq.) and other unmarried couples and individuals. Domestic partners registered under the California Domestic Partner Rights and Responsibilities Act of 2003 (the Domestic Partner Act), the current version of the domestic partnership law, are the equivalent of spouses for the purposes of the Unruh Act and a business that extends benefits to spouses it denies to registered domestic partners engages in impermissible marital status discrimination. Therefore, we reverse summary judgment in favor of defendant to the extent plaintiffs' claim implicates the Domestic Partner Act.

Sara M. v. Superior Court of Tuolumne County, 116 P.3d 550, 32 Cal.Rptr.3d 89 (Cal. 08/08/2005)
In this case, three children were removed from the custody of their mother, petitioner, Sara M. (hereafter mother), on grounds that she had failed to protect them and they had suffered serious emotional damage. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 300, subds. (b), (c).) The juvenile court declared them dependents of the court and began reunification services to try to reunite the family. After six months of reunification services, the court found that mother had failed to contact or visit the children. (§ 366.21, subd. (e).) Under section 366.21, subdivision (e), and California Rules of Court, rule 1460(f)(1)(B), it terminated reunification services and scheduled a hearing to establish a permanent plan for the children. (See § 366.26.) [¶] In this writ proceeding, mother contends that section 366.21, subdivision (e), does not permit a court to terminate reunification services after only six months due to a parent's failure to contact or visit a child, unless the child had originally been removed from the parent's custody because of abandonment. Because she did not originally abandon the children, she argues, she is entitled to a full year of reunification services before the court may begin to consider a permanent plan. She also argues that rule 1460(f)(1)(B) is invalid because it is contrary to the statute. The Court of Appeal agreed with her.

In re Marriage of Benson, No. S122254 (Cal. 08/11/2005)
Family Code section 852, subdivision (a) (section 852(a)) provides that a "transmutation," or an inter-spousal transaction changing the character of community or separate property (id. at § 850), "is not valid unless made in writing by an express declaration" approved by the adversely affected spouse. In Estate of MacDonald (1990) 51 Cal.3d 262, 264 (MacDonald), this court held that a writing satisfies the "express declaration" requirement only if it states on its face that a change in the character or ownership of the subject property is being made. MacDonald made clear that this construction of section 852(a) precludes the use of "extrinsic evidence" to prove that the writing effected a transmutation. (MacDonald, supra, 51 Cal.3d at p. 264.) MacDonald explained that the Legislature, in enacting these requirements and abrogating prior case law, sought to increase certainty and honesty in marital property disputes, and to decrease the burden on the courts in resolving such matters. [¶] In this dissolution case, Douglas Benson (Husband) claims he conveyed to Diane Benson (Wife) his community property interest in their home after she orally promised to waive, in writing, her community property interest in Husband's retirement accounts. No such writing was ever made. Despite section 852(a) and MacDonald, supra, 51 Cal.3d 262, the lower courts ruled that Husband's performance of his part of the bargain, as evidenced by the deed he signed in Wife's favor, served as an adequate substitute for Wife's express written statement changing the retirement accounts into Husband's separate property. [¶] We disagree. . . .

In re Tamika C., No. F047571 (Cal.App. Dist.5 08/09/2005)
Tamika C. has been a dependent child of the juvenile court placed in long-term foster care almost her entire life. The Kern County Department of Human Services (department) filed a petition seeking to terminate dependency after Tamika reached the age of majority. The department's basis for termination was to relieve itself of the increased financial obligation that must be borne by the department when a dependent child reaches the age of 19. Tamika, through her counsel, objected to the termination of dependency because she wished to remain a dependent child of the court until she completed her high school education, scheduled for June of 2006. The trial court terminated dependency. Tamika appeals from this order, claiming the trial court erred in terminating her dependency. [¶] We must determine if it would be in Tamika's best interests to remain a dependent until she graduates from high school, or if the department's stated desire to save money is sufficient to override Tamika's best interests. We reverse.

In re Joshua S., No. B170343 (Cal.App. Dist.2 08/15/2005)
This case returns to us following remand to the juvenile court for reconsideration of its order terminating jurisdiction over two brothers (the children) who, after being adjudicated persons described by Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, were placed by the Department of Children and Family Services (the department) with their indigent maternal grandmother on an Indian Reserve in Canada. In the prior appeal, we found that the juvenile court abused its discretion in terminating jurisdiction because the court failed to consider whether termination was in the children's best interests. (In re Joshua S. (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 1341, 1356.) We remanded for consideration of that issue, including whether grandmother was yet able to provide for the children's needs without financial assistance, and whether financial assistance was available from Canadian or California sources. (Ibid.) [¶] On remand, the juvenile court once again terminated jurisdiction, finding it was in the children's best interest to continue living with grandmother and that the court had no authority to order the department to provide financial assistance to the children while they were living in Canada. The children again appeal, making various contentions which, reduced to their essence, are: (1) state funding is available for the children, and (2) the court should not have terminated jurisdiction. We again reverse.

Zimmerman, Rosenfeld, Gersh & Leeds LLP v. Larson, No. B177971 (Cal.App. Dist.2 08/17/2005)
Appellant, the law firm of Zimmerman, Rosenfeld, Gersh & Leeds (ZRG&L;, brought suit against its former client, respondent Glen Larson, seeking payment of fees incurred in its representation of Larson in a divorce action. While the dissolution proceedings were pending in family court, Larson sought federal bankruptcy protection and obtained a confirmed plan of reorganization under chapter 11 after ZRG&L;s representation ceased. The trial court granted Larson's motion for summary judgment in the attorney fees action on the ground that the firm had failed to disclose its agreement or a statement of compensation to the bankruptcy court for approval as required by Title 11 United States Code section 1129. [¶] Our review of the record indicates that Larson did not present sufficient evidence to establish ZRG&L;was required to comply with section 1129. We affirm nevertheless, because (1) the debt owed to ZRG&L; having arisen prior to the confirmation of the reorganization plan, was extinguished except to the extent it was dealt with in the plan; and (2) ZRG&L;did not dispute for purposes of the summary judgment motion that the plan provided for payment to ZRG&L;only if Larson's home sold for more than a certain amount or that the home sold for less than the amount specified.

Elisa B. v. Superior Court of El Dorado County, No. S125912 (Cal. 08/22/2005)
We granted review in this case, as well as in K.M. v. E.G. (Aug. 22, 2005, S125643) __ Cal.4th __, and Kristine H. v. Lisa R. (Aug. 22, 2005, S126945) __ Cal.4th __, to consider the parental rights and obligations, if any, of a woman with regard to a child born to her partner in a lesbian relationship. [¶] In the present action for child support filed by the El Dorado County District Attorney, we conclude that a woman who agreed to raise children with her lesbian partner, supported her partner's artificial insemination using an anonymous donor, and received the resulting twin children into her home and held them out as her own, is the children's parent under the Uniform Parentage Act and has an obligation to support them.

K.M. v. E.G., No. S125643 (Cal. 08/22/2005)
We granted review in this case, as well as in Elisa B. v. Superior Court (Aug. 22, 2005, S125912) __ Cal.4th __, and Kristine H. v. Lisa R. (Aug. 22, 2005, S126945) __ Cal.4th __, to consider the parental rights and obligations, if any, of a woman with regard to a child born to her partner in a lesbian relationship. [¶] In the present case, we must decide whether a woman who provided ova to her lesbian partner so that the partner could bear children by means of in vitro fertilization is a parent of those children. For the reasons that follow, we conclude that Family Code section 7613, subdivision (b), which provides that a man is not a father if he provides semen to a physician to inseminate a woman who is not his wife, does not apply when a woman provides her ova to impregnate her partner in a lesbian relationship in order to produce children who will be raised in their joint home. Accordingly, when partners in a lesbian relationship decide to produce children in this manner, both the woman who provides her ova and her partner who bears the children are the children's parents.

In re Dakota H., No. D045824 (Cal.App. Dist.4 08/26/2005)
Christina N. appeals a judgment terminating her parental rights to her minor son Dakota H. under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. Christina contends her due process rights to maintain her parental status were violated by the lack of a current judicial finding of parental unfitness. Christina also challenges the court's finding there was not a beneficial relationship exception to termination of parental rights under section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(A). We affirm the judgment.

Kristine H. v. Lisa R., No. S126945 (Cal. 08/22/2005)
We granted review in this case as well as in Elisa B. v. Superior Court (Aug. 22, 2005, S125912) __ Cal.4th __, and K.M. v. E.G. (Aug. 22, 2005, S125643) __ Cal.4th __, to consider the parental rights and obligations, if any, of a woman with regard to a child born to her partner in a lesbian relationship. [¶] The present action arises from a judgment stating that both Kristine H. and her lesbian partner, Lisa R., are the parents of a child born to Kristine H. The judgment was entered pursuant to a stipulation of the parties when Kristine H. was pregnant. The Court of Appeal ruled that the judgment is void but that Lisa R. still may have parental rights as a presumed parent under Family Code section 7611, subdivision (d), and remanded the matter for further proceedings. [¶] We conclude that Kristine is estopped from attacking the validity of the judgment to which she stipulated, and the Court of Appeal therefore erred in reversing the superior court judgment denying Kristine's motion to vacate the judgment

In re Amy A., No. D046032 (Cal.App. Dist.4 08/24/2005)
Quentin A., the biological father of Amy A., appeals from a judgment terminating his parental rights on the basis of abandonment under Family Code section 7822 so that Amy can be adopted by her stepfather, petitioner Dale A. Quentin contends that he did not, as required for a finding of abandonment under section 7822, "leave" Amy in the care and custody of another person and did not intend to abandon her. We reject Quentin's arguments and affirm the judgment terminating his parental rights.

In re Alexis H., No. B177126 (Cal.App. Dist.2 08/22/2005)
Ernest and Jennifer had two children, Alexis, born in 1996, and Nathaniel, born in 1998. In addition, Jennifer had a third child, Jasmine, born in 2003, with another man who is part of these proceedings, but not part of this appeal. [¶] In February 2004, the Department of Children and Family Services filed a petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300. The petition alleged Jennifer let Jasmine's father use illegal drugs in the house, and that he stored his drugs where the children had access to them. The petition further alleged Jennifer and appellant fought physically in front of the children, and that appellant could not care for his children because he was in prison. The Department recommended that the court declare the children dependents of the court, but permit the children to continue to live with Jennifer. The Department also recommended that appellant receive reunification services, and that both he and Jennifer enroll in parenting classes and counseling. [¶] Jasmine's father and Jennifer entered into a mediated agreement admitting the allegations against them and submitted to the court's jurisdiction. Appellant, however, demanded a contested hearing for the allegations against him. In addition, he claimed Native American descent from both the Cherokee Nation and Apache Tribes, making his children subject to the Indian Child Welfare Act. (25 U.S.C. §§ 1901 et seq.) [¶] . . . [¶] At the contested hearing, appellant argued the evidence of domestic violence between him and Jennifer was insufficient to support dependency court jurisdiction. He also argued evidence of his drug use was likewise too sketchy to support jurisdiction, although he admitted being in prison for drug possession. The court sustained the allegations against appellant, and declared the children dependents of the court. The court placed the children with Jennifer and ordered the Department to provide family maintenance services to her. The court also ordered monitored visitation for appellant while he was in prison, and directed the Department to provide him reunification services. This appeal followed.

In re Marriage of Calcaterra, No. B180103 (Cal.App. Dist.2 08/22/2005)
Family law courts have a difficult task. They must characterize property, divide community property, and award spousal and child support. This undertaking becomes even more challenging when a party submits misleading or false information to the court. Where the trial court recognizes deception, it may draw adverse factual inferences and even refer the matter for perjury prosecution. As we said in In re Marriage of Chakko (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 104, 110, the courts will not tolerate those who interfere with the truth-seeking function of the trial court. Here the trial court expressly opined that appellant, Omid Badakhsh (father), committed perjury. Father appeals from the order increasing his child support obligation from $350 per month to $1789 per month. He contends: (1) the evidence is insufficient to support the trial court's determination of his income, (2) the trial court erroneously refused to accept a proposed modification of the DissoMaster calculation of child support, (3) the trial court erred in not imputing income to mother of $9,000 per month based on her earning capacity, and (4) the trial court should have evaluated mother's fitness as a parent. These contentions are premised upon evidence that was not credited by the trial court. We do not retry cases on appeal and we affirm the child support modification order

In re Marriage of Freeman, No. B177397 (Cal.App. Dist.2 08/22/2005)
Following her unsuccessful appeal, the trial court imposed an attorney fee sanction against Norda R. Freeman in this long-running family law litigation. The order was made on a Family Code section 271 motion of her husband, Donald A. Freeman. Norda challenges the fee award in this appeal. Among other arguments presented is her claim that Donald failed to satisfy the requirement of California Rules of Court, rule 870.2(c), that an application for post-judgment attorney fees incurred on an appeal be filed within the time limitation of that rule. We agree and, since the issue is dispositive, it is necessary to reverse the trial court's order. We do not reach the other issues Norda raises in the appeal.

Unpublished

Topic List (Click for cases on that subject)
Spousal Support -- Child Custody -- visitation -- Child Support -- Allocation of Property -- Attorney Fees -- Adoption -- Guardianship -- Foster care -- Removal/Return of Children -- Reunification Services -- Parental Rights -- Domestic Violence

Removal/Return of Children

Reunification Services

Parental Rights

Domestic Violence

People v. Rosiles, No. F045553 (Cal.App. Dist.5 08/02/2005)
Chiang v. Soong, No. A107460 (Cal.App. Dist.1 08/09/2005)
Littleford v. Wong, No. A109253 (Cal.App. Dist.1 08/19/2005)

California Family Law Case Summaries

June 26 - July 30, 2005

Click on case name to see how to access full text

Published

In re S.B., No. E036823 (Cal.App. Dist.4 06/30/2005)
Jeannie V. (mother) appeals from an order terminating parental rights to her daughter, S.B. At the preceding hearing, at which the juvenile court set the termination hearing, the social worker learned for the first time that S.B. had Indian ancestry. At that point, the social worker attempted to give notice pursuant to the Indian Child Welfare Act . . . (the ICWA). Although the notice did not comply fully with all applicable requirements, it did reach the Cherokee Nation (the Tribe), and the Tribe did respond. . . . . [¶] . . ., we consider the mother's contention that the juvenile court and the social worker complied only belatedly with their duty under the ICWA to inquire into S.B.'s Indian ancestry. We will reject this contention for three reasons. . . . [¶] In the unpublished portion of this opinion, we find no other error. Accordingly, we will affirm.

In re A. C., No. D045073 (Cal.App. Dist.4 06/28/2005)
Perla A. (Mother) and Jorge C. (Father), parents of A. C. and residents of Tijuana, Mexico, appeal the juvenile court's postdispositional order granting de facto parent status to Jon and Christine D. (the D's.), the foster parents of A., a juvenile court dependent. Mother contends California does not have subject matter jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act . . . She also contends the court erred by denying her request for a continuance, the dependency petition does not state a cause of action, and the jurisdictional findings and orders are unsupported by substantial evidence. Father contends he was not properly served under the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extra-judicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters . . . Both parents contend the court abused its discretion by granting the D's.' de facto parent application and each parent joins in the other's arguments. We conclude California does not have subject matter jurisdiction of this dependency proceeding and reverse with directions to the juvenile court to dismiss the dependency petition.

In re Iris R., No. B178738 (Cal.App. Dist.2 06/27/2005)
Appellant Rosa R. (mother) appeals from the jurisdictional order entered July 7, 2004, declaring her minor children, Iris R. (born April 1990) and Melvin R. (born February 1997), dependent children of the court under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (g). Contrary to appellant's related contentions, her absence at the dependency jurisdictional hearing because of her incarceration on charges of kidnapping illegal aliens for ransom and conspiracy to commit extortion did not violate her statutory right to be present . . . or, under the circumstances, result in any prejudicial denial of due process.

In re Javier G., No. D045617 (Cal.App. Dist.4 06/30/2005)
Maria S. and her children Javier G. and Hector G. purport to appeal jurisdictional findings as to Javier and Hector, issued after the San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency (the Agency) filed a supplemental petition on the boys' behalves under Welfare and Institutions Code section 387. We hold the jurisdictional findings on a section 387 petition are interlocutory and non-appealable, and issues pertaining to the findings may be challenged on appeal of the dispositional order. We dismiss the appeals for lack of appellate jurisdiction.

In re Klug, No. C045571 (Cal.App. Dist.3 07/07/2005)
Donald Klug (Donald) appeals from a postjudgment order denying his motion for division of a community asset omitted from the marital termination agreement (MTA) -- specifically, the $346,000 awarded to respondent Lynn Klug (Lynn) in settlement of her legal malpractice lawsuit against the couple's former attorney. Donald contends the court erred in ruling that the settlement proceeds were Lynn's separate property. He argues that the malpractice cause of action accrued during the marriage and the settlement proceeds were a community asset. [¶] The trial court ruled that the $346,000 settlement was Lynn's separate property and not subject to division as an omitted asset because "the cause of action for the malpractice case against Mr. Christensen accrued after separation." . . . Because the trial court's factual findings also support the finding that Lynn's cause of action for legal malpractice arose after separation, we shall affirm the order.

Annette F. v. Sharon S., No. D043723 (Cal.App. Dist.4 07/12/2005)
Sharon S. (Sharon) appeals an order awarding Annette F. (Annette) attorney fees in Annette's action raising custody and visitation issues as to their son Zachary. On appeal Sharon contends the trial court: (1) acted in excess of its jurisdiction by awarding attorney fees without statutory authority; and (2) abused its discretion by awarding Annette $17,500 in attorney fees in the circumstances of this case. Annette contends Sharon's appeal is untimely and should be dismissed. Because we conclude Sharon's notice of appeal was not timely filed, we dismiss her appeal.

In re Claudia S., No. D045602 (Cal.App. Dist.4 07/21/2005)
In this case, a mother took her minor children to Mexico knowing that the San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency (Agency) planned to file juvenile dependency petitions on their behalf based on their exposure to domestic violence. The Agency filed the petitions and the juvenile court conducted the detention, jurisdiction and disposition hearings and the 6-month and 12-month review hearings in their absence, in the absence of the presumed father and without appointing counsel on behalf of the parents. After the family reappeared in California almost a year later, the juvenile court ordered the children into foster care and provided reunification services to the parents even though there had been no recent incidents of domestic violence. [¶] The mother contends the court erred as a matter of law when it took jurisdiction because she had custody of the children when she left the United States and took them to Mexico. . . . . [¶] We conclude that the disentitlement doctrine does not preclude these appeals. We also conclude that the juvenile court had jurisdiction over the children, but reverse all orders issued after the detention hearing and remand the matter for a new jurisdiction hearing on the ground that the absence of the family and counsel under the unique circumstances of this case rendered the proceedings fundamentally unfair.

In re Marriage of Meagher, No. A106079 (Cal.App. Dist.1 07/18/2005)
Defendant Stephen Attila Nadasdy (Stephen) challenges the denial of his motion to vacate (and the denial of his renewed motion to vacate) a Santa Clara County order obtained by Intervenor Santa Clara County Department of Child Support Services (the Department) registering an Orange County family court order and a Santa Clara County child support order obtained by the Department. We reject his contentions and affirm the orders.

In re Josiah Z., No. S125822 (Cal. 07/25/2005)
A child's dependency appeal, challenging the juvenile court's evaluation of the child's best interests, involves a delicate balancing of considerations. We must decide what role a child's appellate counsel plays in this balance and, in particular, under what circumstances appellate counsel may investigate whether dismissal of an appeal is in the child's best interests. [¶] We conclude the following: (1) appellate counsel has the power to seek dismissal of a child's dependency appeal based on the child's best interests, and the Court of Appeal has the power to consider and rule on such a motion; (2) pursuant to appellate counsel's power, counsel may seek funds to meet personally with her client to investigate a potential motion; but (3) appellate counsel may actually file a motion to dismiss only after consultation with and authorization from the child or the child's guardian ad litem. Here, appellate counsel for two minor siblings failed to demonstrate cause for the appropriation of funds in light of the guardian ad litem's unequivocal opposition to any motion to dismiss. We affirm the Court of Appeal's denial of appellate counsel's request for funds, but remand without prejudice to appellate counsel's renewing her motion under the standards set forth in our opinion.

In re April C., No. B178548 (Cal.App. Dist.2 07/27/2005)
Hugo M. (Hugo), the boyfriend of Rosa P. (Mother), mother of minors Ashley and April, appeals orders declaring the minors to be dependents of the juvenile court and denying him reunification services. Hugo contends the juvenile court erred in admitting the hearsay statements of April accusing him of sexually molesting her. He asserts that pursuant to the United States Supreme Court opinion in Crawford v. Washington (2004) 541 U.S. 36, the admission of April's testimony deprived him of his due process right to confrontation, and without the hearsay statements, the evidence was insufficient to support a finding that he sexually molested April. Hugo also challenges the denial of reunification services with regard to Ashley, who is his biological child. He contends that the juvenile court erroneously determined that he was an alleged father, rather than a presumed father, and therefore erred in denying him reunification services. Mother separately appeals, contending that substantial evidence did not support the juvenile court's jurisdictional findings based on her conduct. [¶] We affirm. The United States Supreme Court decision in Crawford has no application here because the Sixth Amendment right of a criminal defendant to confrontation under the United States Constitution does not extend to parents in state dependency proceedings.

Unpublished

Topic List (Click for cases on that subject)
Spousal Support -- Child Custody -- visitation -- Child Support -- Allocation of Property -- Professional Malpractice -- Attorney Fees -- Removal/Return of Children -- Reunification Services -- Parental Rights -- Domestic Violence

Spousal Support

[U] Villalobos v. Villalobos, No. B174095 (Cal.App. Dist.2 06/27/2005)
[U] In re Marriage of Pisarz, No. C047221 (Cal.App. Dist.3 07/07/2005)
[U] In re Marriage of Nancy A. S., No. D044447 (Cal.App. Dist.4 07/11/2005)
[U] In re Marriage of Mullen, No. E035721 (Cal.App. Dist.4 07/15/2005)
[U] Rosmarin v. Rosmarin, No. A105607 (Cal.App. Dist.1 07/19/2005)

Child Custody -- visitation

[U] In re Marriage of Sukel, No. D043266 (Cal.App. Dist.4 06/28/2005)
[U] In re Marriage of D.D., No. E035773 (Cal.App. Dist.4 06/30/2005)
[U] In re Marriage of Mork, No. D044879 (Cal.App. Dist.4 06/29/2005)
[U] Sturman v. Koch-Oshita, No. B172912 (Cal.App. Dist.2 06/28/2005)
[U] Routh v. Contopulos, No. G034879 (Cal.App. Dist.4 06/29/2005)
[U] In re Marriage of Gettings, No. C047496 (Cal.App. Dist.3 07/06/2005)
[U] In re Marriage of Bradley J., No. D044845 (Cal.App. Dist.4 07/15/2005)
[U] In re Marriage of Hickman, No. C045585 (Cal.App. Dist.3 07/22/2005)
[U] In re Marriage of S.A., No. E037173 (Cal.App. Dist.4 07/27/2005)

Child Support

[U] In re Marriage of Sinclair, No. E035668 (Cal.App. Dist.4 07/08/2005)
[U] In re Marriage of David, No. A105571 (Cal.App. Dist.1 07/06/2005)
[U] In re Marriage of Nancy A. S., No. D044447 (Cal.App. Dist.4 07/11/2005)
[U] In re Marriage of Levine, No. B176352 (Cal.App. Dist.2 07/11/2005)
[U] In re Marriage of Hubner, No. B174431 (Cal.App. Dist.2 07/12/2005)
[U] Jones v. Yocco, No. B174845 (Cal.App. Dist.2 07/18/2005)
[U] In re Marriage of Nadasdy, No. H027515 (Cal.App. Dist.6 07/20/2005)
[U] County of Stanislaus v. Esmaeili, No. F045657 (Cal.App. Dist.5 07/21/2005)
[U] In re Marriage of S.A., No. E037173 (Cal.App. Dist.4 07/27/2005)

Allocation of Property

[U] In re Marriage of Streiter, No. B178333 (Cal.App. Dist.2 06/28/2005)
[U] In re Marriage of Mathews, No. D045372 (Cal.App. Dist.4 06/30/2005)
[U] In re Marriage of Sherman, No. B173276 (Cal.App. Dist.2 07/20/2005)
[U] Vongyai v. McGraw, No. B177471 (Cal.App. Dist.2 07/20/2005)
[U] In re Marriage of Jones, No. B176946 (Cal.App. Dist.2 07/27/2005)
[U] In re Marriage of Delaney, No. B177965 (Cal.App. Dist.2 07/25/2005)
[U] In re Marriage of Isbell, No. B173850 (Cal.App. Dist.2 07/26/2005)
[U] In re N.G., No. B177131 (Cal.App. Dist.2 07/28/2005)
[U] In re Marriage of Nelson, No. F046576 (Cal.App. Dist.5 07/25/2005)
[U] In re Marriage of Alarcon, No. C046984 (Cal.App. Dist.3 07/29/2005)

Professional Malpractice

[U] Ennis v. Neumann, No. B169514 (Cal.App. Dist.2 07/19/2005)

Attorney Fees

[U] In re Marriage of Benson, No. B177101 (Cal.App. Dist.2 06/28/2005)
[U] In re Marriage of Stearns, No. C040445 (Cal.App. Dist.3 06/30/2005)

Removal/Return of Children

[U] In re William M., No. A105507 (Cal.App. Dist.1 06/29/2005)
[U] In re Natalie M., No. B178475 (Cal.App. Dist.2 06/28/2005)
[U] In re Jordan N., No. G035066 (Cal.App. Dist.4 06/29/2005)
[U] In re Baby Girl A., No. F046989 (Cal.App. Dist.5 06/28/2005)
[U] In re Juan E., No. G034718 (Cal.App. Dist.4 06/29/2005)
[U] In re N. L., No. F047385 (Cal.App. Dist.5 06/27/2005)
[U] In re Sarah B., No. B179721 (Cal.App. Dist.2 06/28/2005)
[U] In re Quintin C., No. A108060 (Cal.App. Dist.1 06/29/2005)
[U] In re A. A., No. A107335 (Cal.App. Dist.1 06/29/2005)
[U] In re K.J., No. B178362 (Cal.App. Dist.2 07/07/2005)
[U] In re Claudia R., No. D045465 (Cal.App. Dist.4 07/06/2005)
[U] In re S.W., No. D045342 (Cal.App. Dist.4 07/06/2005)
[U] In re Krysta F., No. D045523 (Cal.App. Dist.4 07/07/2005)
[U] In re Gavin D., No. F047387 (Cal.App. Dist.5 07/08/2005)
[U] In re Anthony W., No. E036805 (Cal.App. Dist.4 07/12/2005)
[U] Leticia S. v. Superior Court of Santa Clara County, No. H028738 (Cal.App. Dist.6 07/11/2005)
[U] In re G. D., No. E036740 (Cal.App. Dist.4 07/11/2005)
[U] In re J. G., No. D045542 (Cal.App. Dist.4 07/14/2005)
[U] Joseph C. v. Superior Court of Madera County, No. F047561 (Cal.App. Dist.5 07/12/2005)
[U] In re Savannah M., No. D045713 (Cal.App. Dist.4 07/20/2005)
[U] In re Craig K., No. B178713 (Cal.App. Dist.2 07/18/2005)
[U] In re Vanessa C., No. B178560 (Cal.App. Dist.2 07/20/2005)
[U] In re Wyatt W., No. D045878 (Cal.App. Dist.4 07/22/2005)
[U] In re J. T., No. F046536 (Cal.App. Dist.5 07/19/2005)
[U] In re John T., No. C046773 (Cal.App. Dist.3 07/19/2005)
[U] In re Kiera H., No. B178783 (Cal.App. Dist.2 07/18/2005)
[U] In re T. V., No. H028345 (Cal.App. Dist.6 07/21/2005)
[U] In re Jose M., No. D045893 (Cal.App. Dist.4 07/20/2005)
[U] In re Victor G., No. B179227 (Cal.App. Dist.2 07/18/2005)
[U] In re C.S., No. F046990 (Cal.App. Dist.5 07/29/2005)
[U] Alisha A. v. Superior Court of Orange County, No. G035521 (Cal.App. Dist.4 07/25/2005)
[U] In re J.G., No. E037162 (Cal.App. Dist.4 07/28/2005)
[U] In re R.P., No. E036646 (Cal.App. Dist.4 07/28/2005)
[U] In re L.A., No. F047056 (Cal.App. Dist.5 07/26/2005)
[U] In re Serena B., No. D046280 (Cal.App. Dist.4 07/26/2005)

Reunification Services

Parental Rights

Domestic Violence

[U] Quintilone v. Superior Court of Orange County, No. G035662 (Cal.App. Dist.4 07/21/2005)

California Family Law Case Summaries

May 22 - June 25, 2005

Click on case name to see how to access full text

Published

Orange County Department of Child Support Services v. Superior Court of Orange County, No. G034550 (Cal.App. Dist.4 05/23/2005)
The Orange County Department of Child Support Services and Deputy Department Counsel Constance Bailey seek extraordinary relief from the imposition of sanctions against them for prosecuting a non-meritorious contempt proceeding against Clifford Ricketson. We find the trial court erred in failing to transfer the sanctions hearing to the judicial officer who heard the contempt proceeding. Accordingly, we grant the petition.

Filip v. Bucurenciu, No. C046460 (Cal.App. Dist.3 05/24/2005)
The Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (UFTA), . . . "permits defrauded creditors to reach property in the hands of a transferee." . . . In this case, the court concluded that Marioara (also known as Mary) Bucurenciu and her daughter Roxanne conspired with Mary's former husband Petru (also known as Peter) Bucurenciu to transfer property to prevent plaintiff from collecting on a judgment owed by Peter. Part of this scheme involved transferring property to Loomis Land, Inc. (LLI), a business in which Mary and Roxanne were the sole shareholders. In their appeal from a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendants Mary and LLI challenge the basis for liability under the UFTA and raise related issues. In the published portion of this opinion, we conclude that the UFTA applies to property transactions associated with a marital dissolution and property settlement agreement. We affirm the judgment.

Hosanna Homes v. County of Alameda Social Services Agency, No. A103128 (Cal.App. Dist.1 06/08/2005)
Appellant Hosanna Homes and respondent Families First are both foster family agencies (FFAs) utilized by respondent County of Alameda (the County) for placement of foster children. In the underlying action, Hosanna Homes alleged it was damaged by an "illegal rollover" instituted by Families First and the County. The rollover occurred when a foster family with two foster children severed their relationship with Hosanna Homes, and retained the children in their home after becoming certified as a foster family with Families First. Hosanna Homes appeals the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Families First and the County. [¶] It is undisputed that the rollover in question was requested by the County, the public entity entrusted with the foster children's welfare, and was sanctioned by order of the Alameda County Juvenile Court, the ultimate legal authority over the foster children. Furthermore, the undisputed facts reveal that no statute, rule, regulation or contract was ignored or broken when the foster family left Hosanna Homes and became a certified foster family with Families First. Consequently, we affirm the trial court's grant of summary judgment, . . . .

In re Carlos E., No. A108890 (Cal.App. Dist.1 06/07/2005)
Carlos E.'s legal guardian, Barbara A., has petitioned for extraordinary relief pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 38.1. She seeks review of the juvenile court's order terminating reunification services and setting a permanency planning hearing under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. Barbara contends the juvenile court abused its discretion when it found that, although the Alameda County Social Services Agency (Agency) failed to provide her with reasonable reunification services, no further services would be provided. She also argues that the juvenile court erred in finding the return of Carlos E. to her would create a substantial risk of detriment to his safety, protection or physical or emotional well-being. We conclude that the termination of Barbara's status as Carlos's legal guardian is not governed by section 366.26 and she is not entitled to reunification services. We, therefore, deny the writ.

In re Michelle C., No. D044991 (Cal.App. Dist.4 06/23/2005)
In this consolidated appeal and petition for a writ of habeas corpus, Maria F. (Maria) challenges an order and judgment of the juvenile court terminating her parental rights to Michelle C. (Michelle) after a hearing pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. Maria maintains that the trial court violated her constitutional due process rights and her right to counsel by proceeding to terminate her parental rights despite the fact that neither she nor her attorney were present at the selection and implementation hearing. We conclude that the court violated Maria's constitutional rights by terminating her parental rights at a hearing at which neither she nor her attorney were present, in the absence of a waiver, express or implied, of her right to be represented by counsel or to be heard, and that the error is a structural one that requires automatic reversal

In re Aaron R., No. A107639 (Cal.App. Dist.1 06/23/2005)
In these dependency proceedings, the mother appeals from an order terminating parental rights and freeing the minor for adoption and the maternal grandmother appeals an order denying a petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 388. We affirm both orders.

Katie V. v. Superior Court of San Diego County, No. D045980 (Cal.App. Dist.4 06/22/2005)
Katie V., R.V.'s mother, seeks extraordinary writ review (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26, subd., (l); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 38.1) challenging the juvenile court's order terminating reunification services at the 18-month review hearing and setting a section 366.26 permanency planning hearing. Katie contends she was not offered reasonable reunification services and the court erred by applying a preponderance of the evidence standard of proof instead of requiring clear and convincing evidence. [¶] We issued an order to show cause, the San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency (the Agency) responded, and the parties waived oral argument. We conclude that at the 18-month review hearing a preponderance of the evidence standard of proof applies to the reunification services issue, and the court's order is supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, we deny the petition.

Unpublished

Topic List (Click for cases on that subject)
Spousal Support -- Child Custody -- visitation -- Child Support -- Allocation of Property -- Annulments -- Paternity -- Proceedings -- Adoption -- Guardianship -- Foster care -- Removal/Return of Children -- Reunification Services -- Parental Rights -- Domestic Violence

Spousal Support

In re Marriage of Spirit, No. D043901 (Cal.App. Dist.4 05/25/2005)
In re Marriage of Eva M., No. B157012 (Cal.App. Dist.2 05/31/2005)

Child Custody -- visitation

In re Marriage of Garcia-Burgos, No. D045329 (Cal.App. Dist.4 06/03/2005)
Ellis v. Ellis, No. B177705 (Cal.App. Dist.2 06/08/2005)
A.G. v. D.W., No. B175367 (Cal.App. Dist.2 06/21/2005)
LaGuardia v. Tamura, No. G034072 (Cal.App. Dist.4 06/24/2005)
In re Marriage of Rice, No. G034397 (Cal.App. Dist.4 06/24/2005)
In re Marriage of Winternitz, No. C047585 (Cal.App. Dist.3 06/21/2005)

Child Support

In re Marriage of McClellan, No. D044442 (Cal.App. Dist.4 05/25/2005)
In re Marriage of Lazaro, No. A107473 (Cal.App. Dist.1 06/06/2005)
Snyder v. Gagnon, No. D043959 (Cal.App. Dist.4 06/16/2005)
Cavallini-Gardner v. Gardner, No. D045279 (Cal.App. Dist.4 06/21/2005)

Allocation of Property

In re Marriage of Tashjian, No. A106244 (Cal.App. Dist.1 05/24/2005)
In re Marriage of Floyd, No. C045501 (Cal.App. Dist.3 06/03/2005)
In re Marriage of Silvia, No. D044743 (Cal.App. Dist.4 06/03/2005)
In re Marriage of Lyn, No. C046885 (Cal.App. Dist.3 06/06/2005)
In re Marriage of Dennis, No. G033553 (Cal.App. Dist.4 06/07/2005)
In re Marriage of Rossi, No. H026944 (Cal.App. Dist.6 06/06/2005)
In re Marriage of Cassayre, No. A107736 (Cal.App. Dist.1 06/15/2005)
In re Marriage of Aster, No. H027866 (Cal.App. Dist.6 06/13/2005)
Paulson v. Paulson, No. D044801 (Cal.App. Dist.4 06/20/2005)

Annulments

Mothershead v. Mothershead, No. B177926 (Cal.App. Dist.2 06/22/2005)

Paternity

In re Angela A., No. B175633 (Cal.App. Dist.2 05/26/2005)
In re Trinity S., No. G034834 (Cal.App. Dist.4 05/26/2005)
County of San Diego v. Shea, No. D044028 (Cal.App. Dist.4 05/24/2005)
In re A.R., No. F046835 (Cal.App. Dist.5 06/02/2005)

Proceedings

In re Marriage of Alosio, No. G033227 (Cal.App. Dist.4 05/24/2005)

Adoption -- Guardianship -- Foster care

In re Adoption of Raychel Ann S., No. D045257 (Cal.App. Dist.4 05/24/2005)
In re Malcolm J., No. B179722 (Cal.App. Dist.2 06/01/2005)
In re E.A., No. E037372 (Cal.App. Dist.4 06/14/2005)
Marcel H. v. Superior Court of the County of San Bernardino, No. E037697 (Cal.App. Dist.4 06/13/2005)
In re Alexandria M., No. E036432 (Cal.App. Dist.4 06/13/2005)
In re R.R., No. C046840 (Cal.App. Dist.3 06/20/2005)

Removal/Return of Children

Reunification Services

Parental Rights

Domestic Violence

People v. Dennis, No. D044201 (Cal.App. Dist.4 05/24/2005)
People v. Barragan, No. F044337 (Cal.App. Dist.5 06/15/2005)
People v. Estrada, No. B175493 (Cal.App. Dist.2 06/22/2005)

California Family Law Case Summaries

April 24 - May 21, 2005

Click on case name to see how to access full text

Published

In re Carl R., No. D044674 (Cal.App. Dist.4 04/28/2005)
Renne B. appeals the judgment terminating her parental rights to her son, Carl R., Jr., (Carl) under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. Carl also appeals the judgment and Renne and Carl have each joined in the other's appeal. Appellants argue parental rights should not have been terminated because the court did not consider whether the prospective adoptive parents would meet Carl's educational needs; the prospective adoptive parents' plan to home school Carl constituted a legal impediment to adoption; the court refused to hear evidence pertaining to Carl's specific educational needs, denying him due process; the court should have admitted evidence on the issue of whether the section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(D) exception to terminating parental rights applied; and terminating parental rights was not in Carl's best interests. They also argue the court should not have summarily denied Carl's section 388 modification petition brought after parental rights were terminated. We affirm the judgment.

Deborah M. v. Superior Court of San Diego County, No. D045854 (Cal.App. Dist.4 04/29/2005)
In this petition we are asked to determine if Family Code section 3041.5, subdivision (a) (section 3041.5(a)) permits courts in custody and visitation proceedings to order drug testing by means of a hair follicle test of a parent whom the court has determined engaged in "habitual, frequent, or continual illegal use of controlled substances." We conclude the language of section 3041.5(a), relevant federal regulations, and section 3041.5(a)'s statutory history demonstrate that at present only urine tests are allowed. Accordingly, we grant the petition and order the court to vacate its order compelling the hair follicle drug test.

In re C.G., No. B175094 (Cal.App. Dist.2 05/05/2005)
In this appeal, mother C. G. challenges the court order appointing a legal guardian for her daughter C. G., in part because the court improperly appointed a guardian ad litem to act for mother in the dependency proceedings. We conclude the guardian ad litem appointment violated mother's due process rights and requires reversal of the underlying order.

In re Joshua G., No. D044973 (Cal.App. Dist.4 05/10/2005)
Marianne G. and Robert G. appeal the judgments terminating their parental rights to their children, Joshua G. and Jacob G., under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. Marianne asserts the court erred in denying her motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 128, subdivision (a)(8) to vacate the referral orders; erred by not advising her of the possible consequences of waiving her right to a trial; and abused its discretion when it denied her request to continue the section 366.26 hearing. She also asserts insufficient evidence supported the finding of adoptability and the finding that the section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(A) beneficial relationship exception does not apply. [¶] Robert asserts the judgments should be reversed because the Imperial County Department of Social Services (the Department) reneged on its agreement to recommend guardianship and was estopped from asserting the parents did not meet their burden to show an exception to adoption applied; extrinsic fraud or mistake denied the parents a fair adversary proceeding; and the court erred in terminating parental rights because he had a beneficial relationship with the children within the meaning of the section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(A) exception. Each parent has joined the appeal of the other. We affirm the judgments.

Librers v. Black, No. H025966 (Cal.App. Dist.6 05/09/2005)
Family Code section 7611, subdivision (d) defines a "presumed father" as a man who "receives the child into his home and openly holds out the child as his natural child." The question in this appeal is whether the trial court erred in finding that appellant lacked standing to prosecute an action under the Uniform Parentage Act (UPA) (§ 7600 et seq.) as a "presumed father." We hold that the trial court erred and, accordingly, reverse the judgment of dismissal and remand to the trial court for further proceedings in accordance with the views expressed in this opinion.

In re Jonathon S., No. E037183 (Cal.App. Dist.4 05/11/2005)
Tiffany S. (mother) appeals from an order terminating her parental rights to her son, Jonathon S. She contends the juvenile court erred by failing to ensure that notice was given in accordance with the Indian Child Welfare Act (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) (ICWA). In the unpublished portion of this opinion, we will agree.

In re Starkman, No. B178371 (Cal.App. Dist.2 05/18/2005)
As part of their estate plan a husband and wife establish a revocable trust into which husband transfers all of his separate property. A paragraph in the trust agreement provides that the property transferred to the trust is community property unless husband or wife as transferor identifies it as separate property. Husband does not so identify the property. [¶] Here we hold that the clause is insufficient to create a transmutation of husband's separate property to community property. [¶] Christine Starkman appeals an interlocutory judgment entered in favor of her former husband, Christopher Starkman, regarding asserted transmutation and characterization of property that was conveyed to the parties' revocable trust. We affirm.

Unpublished

Topic List (Click for cases on that subject)
Spousal Support -- Child Custody -- visitation -- Child Support -- Allocation of Property -- Annulments -- Adoption -- Guardianship -- Foster care -- Removal/Return of Children -- Reunification Services -- Parental Rights -- Domestic Violence

Spousal Support

[U] In re Marriage of Begier, No. A106480 (Cal.App. Dist.1 04/29/2005)
[U] In re Marriage of Tinker, No. B175881 (Cal.App. Dist.2 05/05/2005)
[U] In re Marriage of Brower, No. B172696 (Cal.App. Dist.2 05/05/2005)
[U] In re Marriage of Sellwood, No. G033560 (Cal.App. Dist.4 05/17/2005)

Child Custody -- visitation

[U] Seaquist v. Seaquist, No. B172487 (Cal.App. Dist.2 04/20/2005)
[U] In re Marriage of Constance J., No. D044901 (Cal.App. Dist.4 04/20/2005)
[U] In re Marriage of Lu, No. A107103 (Cal.App. Dist.1 04/27/2005)
[U] In re Marriage of Lien, No. D043967 (Cal.App. Dist.4 05/04/2005)
[U] In re Marriage of Montoya, No. A108219 (Cal.App. Dist.1 05/11/2005)
[U] Ferretti v. Smith, No. H027473 (Cal.App. Dist.6 05/17/2005)

Child Support

[U] In re Marriage of Paruk, No. G033755 (Cal.App. Dist.4 04/29/2005)
[U] In re Marriage of Begier, No. A106480 (Cal.App. Dist.1 04/29/2005)
[U] In re Marriage of Taper, No. B169036 (Cal.App. Dist.2 05/12/2005)
[U] In re Marriage of Montoya, No. A108218 (Cal.App. Dist.1 05/11/2005
[U] In re Marriage of Bunce, No. A102552 (Cal.App. Dist.1 05/18/2005)
[U] In re Marriage of Kelsey, No. B169965 (Cal.App. Dist.2 05/16/2005)

Allocation of Property

[U] In re Marriage of Gayle M., No. B170332 (Cal.App. Dist.2 04/21/2005)
[U] In re Marriage of Siwecki, No. G034239 (Cal.App. Dist.4 04/26/2005)
[U] In re Marriage of Parker, No. A103892 (Cal.App. Dist.1 04/25/2005)
[U] In re Marriage of Johnson, No. C04756 (Cal.App. Dist.3 04/25/2005)
[U] In re Marriage of Haro, No. G033303 (Cal.App. Dist.4 04/26/2005)
[U] Olson v. Olson, No. B175954 (Cal.App. Dist.2 05/10/2005)

Annulments

[U] In re Marriage of Glatfelter, No. C045651 (Cal.App. Dist.3 04/26/2005)0654 -
[U] In re Marriage of Litmon, No. A105075 (Cal.App. Dist.1 05/10/2005)

Adoption -- Guardianship -- Foster care

[U] In I.F., No. F047165 (Cal.App. Dist.5 04/25/2005)
[U] In re Alexa L., No. H028009 (Cal.App. Dist.6 05/05/2005)
[U] In re Mario H., No. D045365 (Cal.App. Dist.4 05/09/2005)

Removal/Return of Children

Reunification Services

Parental Rights

Domestic Violence

[U] People v. Davis, No. B174580 (Cal.App. Dist.2 04/27/2005)

Home Page -- Products -- Order Now -- Download Issue -- Contact Us

SPECIALTY LAW - California Family Law

California family law cases contained in the Updated through August 28, 2005

California Family Law Case Summaries

July 31 - August 28, 2005

June 26 - July 30, 2005

May 22 - June 25, 2005

April 17 - May 21, 2005

Click on data range to see summaries for those dates

California Family Law Case Summaries

July 31 - August 28, 2005, 2005

Click on case name to see how to access full text

Published

Unpublished

Topic List (Click for cases on that subject) Spousal Support -- Child Custody -- visitation -- Child Support -- Allocation of Property -- Attorney Fees -- Adoption -- Guardianship -- Foster care -- Removal/Return of Children -- Reunification Services -- Parental Rights -- Domestic Violence

Spousal Support

Child Custody -- visitation

Child Support

Allocation of Property

Attorney Fees

Adoption -- Guardianship -- Foster care

Removal/Return of Children

Reunification Services

Parental Rights

Domestic Violence

California Family Law Case Summaries

June 26 - July 30, 2005

Click on case name to see how to access full text

Published

Unpublished

Topic List (Click for cases on that subject) Spousal Support -- Child Custody -- visitation -- Child Support -- Allocation of Property -- Professional Malpractice -- Attorney Fees -- Removal/Return of Children -- Reunification Services -- Parental Rights -- Domestic Violence

Spousal Support

Child Custody -- visitation

Child Support

Allocation of Property

Professional Malpractice

Attorney Fees

Removal/Return of Children

Reunification Services

Parental Rights

Domestic Violence

California Family Law Case Summaries

May 22 - June 25, 2005

Click on case name to see how to access full text

Published

Unpublished

Spousal Support

Child Custody -- visitation

Child Support

Allocation of Property

Annulments

Paternity

Proceedings

Adoption -- Guardianship -- Foster care

Removal/Return of Children

Reunification Services

Parental Rights

Domestic Violence

California Family Law Case Summaries

April 24 - May 21, 2005

Click on case name to see how to access full text

Published

Unpublished

Topic List (Click for cases on that subject) Spousal Support -- Child Custody -- visitation -- Child Support -- Allocation of Property -- Annulments -- Adoption -- Guardianship -- Foster care -- Removal/Return of Children -- Reunification Services -- Parental Rights -- Domestic Violence

Spousal Support

Child Custody -- visitation

Child Support

Allocation of Property

Annulments

Adoption -- Guardianship -- Foster care

Removal/Return of Children

Reunification Services

Parental Rights

Domestic Violence

California family law cases contained in the
Updated through August 28, 2005

Topic List (Click for cases on that subject)
Spousal Support -- Child Custody -- visitation -- Child Support -- Allocation of Property -- Attorney Fees -- Adoption -- Guardianship -- Foster care -- Removal/Return of Children -- Reunification Services -- Parental Rights -- Domestic Violence

Topic List (Click for cases on that subject)
Spousal Support -- Child Custody -- visitation -- Child Support -- Allocation of Property -- Professional Malpractice -- Attorney Fees -- Removal/Return of Children -- Reunification Services -- Parental Rights -- Domestic Violence

Topic List (Click for cases on that subject)
Spousal Support -- Child Custody -- visitation -- Child Support -- Allocation of Property -- Annulments -- Adoption -- Guardianship -- Foster care -- Removal/Return of Children -- Reunification Services -- Parental Rights -- Domestic Violence