Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
9 California opinions name it 2 courts 1986–1993 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
In Re Megan B.red2 sentences1993(See In re Rubin P. (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 306, 313, fn. 6 [ 3 Cal.Rptr.2d 301 ]; In re Elizabeth M. (1991) 232 Cal.App.3d 553, 563 [ 283 Cal.Rptr. 483 ] [“An order adjudicating a minor a dependent child under section 300 is appealable as a final judgment, and any subsequent order may be appealed from as from an order after judgment.”]; In re Megan B. (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 942, 950 [ 1 Cal.Rptr. 2d 177 ] [“In a dependency proceeding, the dispositional order constitutes a judgment.”]; In re Eli F. (1989) 212 Cal.App.3d 228, 233 [ 260 Cal.Rptr. 453 ]; § 360.) Accordingly, the order authorizing the 1993(See In re Rubin P. (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 306, 313, fn. 6 [ 3 Cal.Rptr.2d 301 ]; In re Elizabeth M. (1991) 232 Cal.App.3d 553, 563 [ 283 Cal.Rptr. 483 ] [“An order adjudicating a minor a dependent child under section 300 is appealable as a final judgment, and any subsequent order may be appealed from as from an order after judgment.”]; In re Megan B. (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 942, 950 [ 1 Cal.Rptr. 2d 177 ] [“In a dependency proceeding, the dispositional order constitutes a judgment.”]; In re Eli F. (1989) 212 Cal.App.3d 228, 233 [ 260 Cal.Rptr. 453 ]; § 360.) Accordingly, the order authorizing the | 2 | 2 |
Orange County Social Services Agency v. Pedro P.green2 sentences1993(See In re Rubin P. (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 306, 313, fn. 6 [ 3 Cal.Rptr.2d 301 ]; In re Elizabeth M. (1991) 232 Cal.App.3d 553, 563 [ 283 Cal.Rptr. 483 ] [“An order adjudicating a minor a dependent child under section 300 is appealable as a final judgment, and any subsequent order may be appealed from as from an order after judgment.”]; In re Megan B. (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 942, 950 [ 1 Cal.Rptr. 2d 177 ] [“In a dependency proceeding, the dispositional order constitutes a judgment.”]; In re Eli F. (1989) 212 Cal.App.3d 228, 233 [ 260 Cal.Rptr. 453 ]; § 360.) Accordingly, the order authorizing the 1993(See In re Rubin P. (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 306, 313, fn. 6 [ 3 Cal.Rptr.2d 301 ]; In re Elizabeth M. (1991) 232 Cal.App.3d 553, 563 [ 283 Cal.Rptr. 483 ] [“An order adjudicating a minor a dependent child under section 300 is appealable as a final judgment, and any subsequent order may be appealed from as from an order after judgment.”]; In re Megan B. (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 942, 950 [ 1 Cal.Rptr. 2d 177 ] [“In a dependency proceeding, the dispositional order constitutes a judgment.”]; In re Eli F. (1989) 212 Cal.App.3d 228, 233 [ 260 Cal.Rptr. 453 ]; § 360.) Accordingly, the order authorizing the | 2 | 2 |
In Re Lorenzo T.green2 sentences1993(See In re Lorenzo T. (1987) 190 Cal.App.3d 888, 892 [ 235 Cal.Rptr. 680 ] [“order for commencement of termination proceedings (§ 366.25 order) is an order after judgment of dependency.”].) The final order terminating parental rights under the current statutory scheme has also been characterized as a final judgment, and, hence, an order terminating reunification services and setting a selection and implementation hearing may also be analyzed as a prejudgment order. 1993(See In re Lorenzo T. (1987) 190 Cal.App.3d 888, 892 [ 235 Cal.Rptr. 680 ] [“order for commencement of termination proceedings (§ 366.25 order) is an order after judgment of dependency.”].) The final order terminating parental rights under the current statutory scheme has also been characterized as a final judgment, and, hence, an order terminating reunification services and setting a selection and implementation hearing may also be analyzed as a prejudgment order. | 2 | 2 |
San Bernardino County Department of Public Social Services v. Servando M.green2 sentences1993(See In re Rubin P. (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 306, 313, fn. 6 [ 3 Cal.Rptr.2d 301 ]; In re Elizabeth M. (1991) 232 Cal.App.3d 553, 563 [ 283 Cal.Rptr. 483 ] [“An order adjudicating a minor a dependent child under section 300 is appealable as a final judgment, and any subsequent order may be appealed from as from an order after judgment.”]; In re Megan B. (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 942, 950 [ 1 Cal.Rptr. 2d 177 ] [“In a dependency proceeding, the dispositional order constitutes a judgment.”]; In re Eli F. (1989) 212 Cal.App.3d 228, 233 [ 260 Cal.Rptr. 453 ]; § 360.) Accordingly, the order authorizing the 1993(See In re Rubin P. (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 306, 313, fn. 6 [ 3 Cal.Rptr.2d 301 ]; In re Elizabeth M. (1991) 232 Cal.App.3d 553, 563 [ 283 Cal.Rptr. 483 ] [“An order adjudicating a minor a dependent child under section 300 is appealable as a final judgment, and any subsequent order may be appealed from as from an order after judgment.”]; In re Megan B. (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 942, 950 [ 1 Cal.Rptr. 2d 177 ] [“In a dependency proceeding, the dispositional order constitutes a judgment.”]; In re Eli F. (1989) 212 Cal.App.3d 228, 233 [ 260 Cal.Rptr. 453 ]; § 360.) Accordingly, the order authorizing the | 2 | 2 |
In Re Eli F.green2 sentences1993(See In re Rubin P. (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 306, 313, fn. 6 [ 3 Cal.Rptr.2d 301 ]; In re Elizabeth M. (1991) 232 Cal.App.3d 553, 563 [ 283 Cal.Rptr. 483 ] [“An order adjudicating a minor a dependent child under section 300 is appealable as a final judgment, and any subsequent order may be appealed from as from an order after judgment.”]; In re Megan B. (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 942, 950 [ 1 Cal.Rptr. 2d 177 ] [“In a dependency proceeding, the dispositional order constitutes a judgment.”]; In re Eli F. (1989) 212 Cal.App.3d 228, 233 [ 260 Cal.Rptr. 453 ]; § 360.) Accordingly, the order authorizing the 1993(See In re Rubin P. (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 306, 313, fn. 6 [ 3 Cal.Rptr.2d 301 ]; In re Elizabeth M. (1991) 232 Cal.App.3d 553, 563 [ 283 Cal.Rptr. 483 ] [“An order adjudicating a minor a dependent child under section 300 is appealable as a final judgment, and any subsequent order may be appealed from as from an order after judgment.”]; In re Megan B. (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 942, 950 [ 1 Cal.Rptr. 2d 177 ] [“In a dependency proceeding, the dispositional order constitutes a judgment.”]; In re Eli F. (1989) 212 Cal.App.3d 228, 233 [ 260 Cal.Rptr. 453 ]; § 360.) Accordingly, the order authorizing the | 2 | 2 |
In Re Baby Girl D.green2 sentences1989No further reunification services are contemplated; 4 instead, “[t]he overriding concern at this point is to provide a stable, permanent home in which a child can develop a lasting emotional attachment to his or her caretakers.” (In re Baby Girl D. (1989) 208 Cal.App.3d 1489, 1493-1494 [ 257 Cal.Rptr. 1 ].) In the present case, the juvenile court found on April 24, 1987, that placement of Emily in her mother’s custody would be detrimental to the minor. 1989No further reunification services are contemplated; 4 instead, “[t]he overriding concern at this point is to provide a stable, permanent home in which a child can develop a lasting emotional attachment to his or her caretakers.” (In re Baby Girl D. (1989) 208 Cal.App.3d 1489, 1493-1494 [ 257 Cal.Rptr. 1 ].) In the present case, the juvenile court found on April 24, 1987, that placement of Emily in her mother’s custody would be detrimental to the minor. | 2 | 2 |
In Re Emily L.green1 sentence1989(In re Emily L., supra, 212 Cal.App.3d at p. 741.) Here, Jones and Anne were unsuccessful in reunifying with the minors even though they had ample opportunities for visitation under the reunification plan. | 1 | 1 |
In Re Morrowred2 sentences1989Thus, the parents were “entitled to have the circumstances leading to the [permanency planning] order reviewed in the light of subsequent events . . . .” (In re Morrow (1970) 9 Cal.App.3d 39, 55 [ 88 Cal.Rptr. 142 ].) In cases such as the one at bar, where the section 232 petition was not heard until long after the permanency planning hearing, it is particularly important to examine present circumstances to determine whether the problems that led to the initiation of section 232 proceedings have been corrected. 1989Thus, the parents were “entitled to have the circumstances leading to the [permanency planning] order reviewed in the light of subsequent events . . . .” (In re Morrow (1970) 9 Cal.App.3d 39, 55 [ 88 Cal.Rptr. 142 ].) In cases such as the one at bar, where the section 232 petition was not heard until long after the permanency planning hearing, it is particularly important to examine present circumstances to determine whether the problems that led to the initiation of section 232 proceedings have been corrected. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Kristin B. v. Richard B.
green
2 sentences1989Both parties cite In re Kristin B. (1986) 187 Cal. App.3d 596 [ 232 Cal. Rptr. 236 ], which held that "the question of mootness must be decided on a case-by-case basis." ( Id. at p. 605.) In Kristin B., the parents appealed from an order authorizing initiation of Civil Code section 232 proceedings as well as from the section 232 judgment itself. (2) The court acknowledged that a final judgment may render moot an appeal from an earlier order. 1989Both parties cite In re Kristin B. (1986) 187 Cal.App.3d 596 [ 232 Cal.Rptr. 236 ], which held that “the question of mootness must be decided on a case-by-case basis.” (Id. at p. 605.) In Kristin B., the parents appealed from an order authorizing initiation of Civil Code section 232 proceedings as well as from the section 232 judgment itself. | 2 | 1989–1989 |
In Re Shannon W.
green
1 sentence1986It is designed to sever the parental relationship as a first step in accomplishing the adoption of the child which, it is hoped, will make further juvenile court jurisdiction unnecessary.” (In re Shannon W., supra, 69 Cal.App.3d at p. 962 .) Thus, the two proceedings are separate and distinct, each serving an entirely different purpose. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.