burden of establishing error in California

2020If severing the natural parent[-]child relationship would deprive the child of a substantial, positive emotional attachment such that the child would be greatly harmed, the preference for adoption is overcome and the natural parent’s rights are not terminated.” (In re Autumn H. (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 567, 575 (Autumn H.).) “A parent asserting the parental benefit exception has the burden of establishing that exception by a preponderance of the evidence. [Citation.] It is not enough to show that the parent and child have a friendly and loving relationship. [Citation.] ‘ “Interaction between [a]

2020If severing the natural parent/child relationship would deprive the child of a substantial, positive emotional attachment such that the child would be greatly harmed, the preference for adoption is overcome and the natural parent’s rights are not terminated.’ (In re Autumn H. (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 567, 575 (Autumn H.); see In re Jasmine D. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 1339, 1347-1348 (Jasmine D.).) [¶] A parent asserting the parental 11 benefit exception has the burden of establishing that exception by a preponderance of the evidence. [Citation.]” (J.C., supra, 226 Cal.App.4th at pp. 528-529.) Import

2020If severing the natural parent/child relationship would deprive the child of a substantial, positive emotional attachment such that the child would be greatly harmed, the preference for adoption is overcome and the natural parent’s rights are not terminated.’ (In re Autumn H. (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 567, 575 (Autumn H.); see In re Jasmine D. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 1339, 1347-1348 (Jasmine D.).) [¶] A parent asserting the parental 11 benefit exception has the burden of establishing that exception by a preponderance of the evidence. [Citation.]” (J.C., supra, 226 Cal.App.4th at pp. 528-529.) Import

2016(Id., subd. (c)(1).) An exception exists if "[t]he parents have maintained regular visitation and contact with the child and the child would benefit from continuing the relationship." (Id., subd. (c)(1)(B)(i).) "A parent asserting the parental benefit exception has the burden of establishing that exception by a preponderance of the evidence." (In re J.C. (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 503, 529 .) With respect to the visitation prong, "[r]egular visitation exists where the parents visit consistently and to the extent permitted by court orders." (In re I.R. (2014) 226 10 Cal.App.4th 201, 212 .) The lack

2025(Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564 .) Mother, appellant, bears the burden of establishing error.

2024(Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564 .) An appellant bears the burden of establishing error.

2025(Keating, at p. 12.) “A motion to compel arbitration is essentially a request for specific performance of a contractual agreement. [Citation.] The party seeking to compel arbitration bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence the existence of an arbitration agreement. [Citations.] The party opposing the petition bears the burden of establishing a defense to the agreement’s enforcement by a preponderance of the evidence.” (Tiri v. Lucky Chances, Inc. (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 231, 239 (Tiri).) B.

2025Because we are resolving this appeal on the discrete issue of the validity of the delegation provision and those documents are unnecessary to decide the appeal, the request is denied. 5 (Tiri v. Lucky Chances, Inc. (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 231, 239 (Tiri).) “A motion to compel arbitration is essentially a request for specific performance of a contractual agreement. [Citation.] The party seeking to compel arbitration bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence the existence of an arbitration agreement. [Citations.] The party opposing the petition bears the burden of establishin

2022Proc., § 1281; Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 83, 114 (Armendariz); Sandoval-Ryan v. Oleander Holdings LLC (2020) 58 Cal.App.5th 217 , 222.) “The party seeking to compel arbitration bears the burden of proving the existence of an arbitration agreement, while the party opposing the petition bears the burden of establishing a defense to the agreement’s enforcement. [Citation.]” (Aanderud v. Superior Court (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 880, 890 ; Civ.

2022Proc., § 1281; Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 83, 114 (Armendariz); Sandoval-Ryan v. Oleander Holdings LLC (2020) 58 Cal.App.5th 217 , 222.) “The party seeking to compel arbitration bears the burden of proving the existence of an arbitration agreement, while the party opposing the petition bears the burden of establishing a defense to the agreement’s enforcement. [Citation.]” (Aanderud v. Superior Court (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 880, 890 .) Unconscionability is such a defense.

2020If severing the natural parent/child relationship would deprive the child of a substantial, positive emotional attachment such that the child would be greatly harmed, the preference for adoption is overcome and the natural parent’s rights are not terminated.’ (In re Autumn H. (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 567, 575 (Autumn H.); see In re Jasmine D. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 1339, 1347-1348 (Jasmine D.).) [¶] A parent asserting the parental 11 benefit exception has the burden of establishing that exception by a preponderance of the evidence. [Citation.]” (J.C., supra, 226 Cal.App.4th at pp. 528-529.) Import

2014If severing the natural parent/child relationship would deprive the child of a substantial, positive emotional attachment such that the child would be *529 greatly harmed, the preference for adoption is overcome and the natural parent’s rights are not terminated.” (In re Autumn H. (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 567, 575 [ 32 Cal.Rptr.2d 535 ] (Autumn H.); see In re Jasmine D. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 1339, 1347-1348 [ 93 Cal.Rptr.2d 644 ] (Jasmine D.).) A parent asserting the parental benefit exception has the burden of establishing that exception by a preponderance of the evidence.

1998Considerations of policy and convenience have led courts to sanction placement of the burden of establishing a defense on defendants under similar circumstances. ( People v. Babbitt [(1988)] 45 Cal.3d 660, 693 [ 248 Cal. Rptr. 69 , 755 P.2d 253 ] [unconsciousness]; People v. Vogel (1956) 46 Cal.2d 798, 803 [ 299 P.2d 850 ] [good faith marriage in bigamy prosecution]; People v. Wells (1938) 10 Cal.2d 610, 617 [ 76 P.2d 493 ] [mitigation in homicide prosecution]; People v. Yoshimura (1979) 91 Cal. App.3d 609, 626 [ 154 Cal. Rptr. 314 ] [permit for otherwise unlawful articles]; People v. Condley

1998Considerations of policy and convenience have led courts to sanction placement of the burden of establishing a defense on defendants under similar circumstances. ( People v. Babbitt [(1988)] 45 Cal.3d 660, 693 [ 248 Cal. Rptr. 69 , 755 P.2d 253 ] [unconsciousness]; People v. Vogel (1956) 46 Cal.2d 798, 803 [ 299 P.2d 850 ] [good faith marriage in bigamy prosecution]; People v. Wells (1938) 10 Cal.2d 610, 617 [ 76 P.2d 493 ] [mitigation in homicide prosecution]; People v. Yoshimura (1979) 91 Cal. App.3d 609, 626 [ 154 Cal. Rptr. 314 ] [permit for otherwise unlawful articles]; People v. Condley

1985(See People v. Samuel, supra, 29 Cal.3d 489 .) Neither the attorneys nor any of the psychiatrists had ever suggested that appellant was incompetent within the context of section 1368 regarding ability to understand the nature of the proceedings and cooperate with counsel. [3] Furthermore, the trial court stated that, although it did not discredit von Dedenroth's testimony, the psychiatrist was neither present when appellant was questioned nor presented with appellant's *457 statements to determine whether these statements were made by someone irrational at that time. (5) The burden of establis

1985(See People v. Samuel, supra, 29 Cal.3d 489 .) Neither the attorneys nor any of the psychiatrists had ever suggested that appellant was incompetent within the context of section 1368 regarding ability to understand the nature of the proceedings and cooperate with counsel. [3] Furthermore, the trial court stated that, although it did not discredit von Dedenroth's testimony, the psychiatrist was neither present when appellant was questioned nor presented with appellant's *457 statements to determine whether these statements were made by someone irrational at that time. (5) The burden of establis

2025Proc., § 1281; Concepcion, at p. 339; Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 83 , 97–98 (Armendariz).) The FAA applies to arbitration agreements “involving”—meaning, “ ‘affecting’ ”— interstate commerce. ( 9 U.S.C. § 2 ; Citizens Bank v. Alafabco, Inc. (2003) 539 U.S. 52, 56 (Alafabco).) A party seeking to compel arbitration bears the burden of proving the existence of an arbitration agreement, and the party opposing the petition bears the burden of establishing a defense to the agreement’s enforcement.

2023(Carmona v. Lincoln Millennium Car Wash, Inc. (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 74, 83 .) “We use general principles of California contract law to determine the enforceability of [an] arbitration agreement.” (Mission Viejo Emergency Medical Associates v. Beta Healthcare Group (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 1146, 1153 .) “ ‘The party seeking to compel arbitration bears the burden of proving the existence of an arbitration agreement, while the party opposing the petition bears the burden of establishing a defense to the agreement’s enforcement.’ ” (Sandoval-Ryan v. Oleander Holdings LLC (2020) 58 Cal.App.5th 217 ,

2024Co. (2016) 248 Cal.App.4th 639, 645 [appellant challenging a summary judgment bears the burden of establishing error on appeal, even though the respondent had the burden of proving its right to summary judgment in the trial court].) II.

2020Co. (2016) 248 Cal.App.4th 639, 645 [same, noting an appellant challenging a summary judgment bears the burden of establishing error on appeal, even though the respondent had the burden of proving its right to summary judgment in the trial court].) De novo review does not obligate a reviewing court to cull the record for the benefit of the appellant in order to attempt to uncover the requisite triable issues.

2022Considerations of policy and convenience have led courts to sanction placement of the burden of establishing a defense on defendants under similar 13 circumstances . . . .” ’ (Moss, supra, 17 Cal. 4th at p. 427 .) ‘Common sense dictates that the contemner raise inability to pay.’ (In re Feiock (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 141, 146 [], overruled on another point in Moss, supra, 17 Cal.4th at p. 428 .)” (Sachs, supra, 95 Cal.App.4th at p. 1153 .) “Finally, we note that a spouse who is experiencing financial difficulty in making support payments can avoid the possibility of contempt by filing an applica

2002Considerations of policy and convenience have led courts to sanction placement of the burden of establishing a defense on defendants under similar circumstances (Moss, supra, 17 Cal.4th at p. 427 .) “Common sense dictates that the contemner raise inability to pay.” (In re Feiock (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 141, 146 [ 263 Cal.Rptr. 437 ], overruled on another point in Moss, supra, 17 Cal.4th at p. 428 .) With regard to child support in California, section 1209.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides: “When a court of competent jurisdiction makes an order compelling a parent to furnish support or ne

2014Co. v. Jacober (1973) 10 Cal.3d 193, 202 [ 110 Cal.Rptr. 1 , 514 P.2d 953 ].) “This rule applies with particular force when the coverage portion of the insurance policy would lead an insured to reasonably expect coverage for the claim purportedly excluded.” (MacKinnon, supra, 31 Cal.4th at p. 648 .) While the insured has the burden of establishing the claim comes within the scope of coverage, the insurer has the burden of establishing the claim comes within an exclusion.

2014Co. v. Jacober (1973) 10 Cal.3d 193, 202 [ 110 Cal.Rptr. 1 , 514 P.2d 953 ].) “This rule applies with particular force when the coverage portion of the insurance policy would lead an insured to reasonably expect coverage for the claim purportedly excluded.” (MacKinnon, supra, 31 Cal.4th at p. 648 .) While the insured has the burden of establishing the claim comes within the scope of coverage, the insurer has the burden of establishing the claim comes within an exclusion.

2026“At a hearing under section 366.26, if the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that a minor is likely to be adopted, the court must terminate parental rights and 7 order the minor placed for adoption ‘unless the court finds a compelling reason for determining that termination would be detrimental’ due to one of the statutorily enumerated exceptions to adoption.” (In re Daisy D. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 287, 291 .) “The parent has the burden of establishing an exception to termination of parental rights.” (Ibid.) Under the beneficial parental relationship exception, the parent bears the

2026Sibling relationship exception A. Applicable law and standard of review At a section 366.26 hearing the trial court is required to select and implement a permanent plan for the dependent child. (§ 366.26, subd. (b).) If the court determines by clear and convincing evidence the child is likely to be adopted, the court “shall” terminate parental rights and order the child placed for adoption unless one of the statutory exceptions is met. (§ 366.26, 16 subd. (c)(1).) “The parent has the burden of establishing an exception to termination of parental rights.” (In re Daisy D. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th

2016(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.725(e)(3); In re Zachary G. (1999) 77 Cal.App.4th 799, 809 .) The beneficial parental relationship exception applies when “[t]he parents have maintained regular visitation and contact with the child and the child would benefit from continuing the relationship.” (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i).) To prove that the beneficial parental relationship exception applies, the parent must show there is a significant, positive emotional attachment between the parent and child.

2015(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.725(d)(4); In re Zachary G. (1999) 77 Cal.App.4th 799, 809 .) The juvenile court has no sua sponte duty to determine whether an exception to adoption applies.

2024(Pinnacle Museum Tower Assn. v. Pinnacle Market Development (US), LLC (2012) 55 Cal.4th 223, 236 .) The party seeking to compel arbitration bears the burden of proving the existence of an arbitration agreement between the parties, and the party opposing the motion bears the burden of establishing a defense to the agreement’s enforcement.

2024Governing Law A. Motions to compel arbitration “‘“[T]he right to compel arbitration depends upon the existence of a valid agreement to arbitrate between the parties.”’” (Kinder, supra, 91 Cal.App.5th at p. 811.) General principles of contract law govern that question.3 (Pinnacle, supra, 55 Cal.4th at p. 236 .) The party seeking to compel arbitration bears the burden of proving the existence of an arbitration agreement between the parties, and the party opposing the motion bears the burden of establishing a defense to the agreement’s enforcement.

2025(See Jameson, supra, 5 Cal.5th at pp. 608-609 [appellant bears the burden of establishing error based upon an adequate record].) E.

2024(See Meddock v. County of Yolo (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 170, 175 ; Oakland Raiders v. National Football League (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 621, 630 ; Brantley v. Pisaro (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 1591, 1602 .) “We need not defer to the trial court and are not bound by the reasons in its summary judgment ruling; we review the ruling of the trial court, not its rationale.” (Oakland Raiders, at p. 630.) Our review is governed by a fundamental principle of appellate procedure; namely, that “ ‘[a] judgment or order of the lower court is presumed correct,’ ” and thus, “ ‘error must be affirmatively shown.’ ” (D

2020(In re Derek W. (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 823, 827 (Derek W.).) “Interaction between natural parent and child will always confer some incidental benefit to the child.

2014(In re Derek W., supra, 73 Cal.App.4th at p. 826 ; In re Lorenzo C. (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 1330, 1345 .) Father contends that the juvenile court erroneously determined that he had not met his burden.

2025THE JUDGMENT A. Governing Principles and Standard of Review “On appeal, the appellant bears the burden of establishing error.” (Barrie v. California Coastal Com. (1987) 196 Cal.App.3d 8, 16 .) “All issues of credibility are for the trier of fact, and all conflicts in the evidence must be resolved in support of the judgment. [Citation.] The trial court’s judgment is presumed to be correct on appeal, and all intendments and presumptions are indulged in favor of its correctness.” (In re Marriage of Nichols (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 661, 670 .) In marital dissolution proceedings, the family court has

2001(Barrie v. California Coastal Com. (1987) 196 Cal.App.3d 8, 16 [ 241 Cal.Rptr. 477 ].) “All issues of credibility are for the trier of fact, and all conflicts in the evidence must be resolved in support of the judgment. [Citation.] The trial court’s judgment is presumed to be correct on appeal, and all intendments and presumptions are indulged in favor of its correctness. [Citation.]” {In re Marriage of Nichols (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 661, 670 [ 33 Cal.Rptr.2d 13 ].) B.

2025THE JUDGMENT A. Governing Principles and Standard of Review “On appeal, the appellant bears the burden of establishing error.” (Barrie v. California Coastal Com. (1987) 196 Cal.App.3d 8, 16 .) “All issues of credibility are for the trier of fact, and all conflicts in the evidence must be resolved in support of the judgment. [Citation.] The trial court’s judgment is presumed to be correct on appeal, and all intendments and presumptions are indulged in favor of its correctness.” (In re Marriage of Nichols (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 661, 670 .) In marital dissolution proceedings, the family court has

2001(Barrie v. California Coastal Com. (1987) 196 Cal.App.3d 8, 16 [ 241 Cal.Rptr. 477 ].) “All issues of credibility are for the trier of fact, and all conflicts in the evidence must be resolved in support of the judgment. [Citation.] The trial court’s judgment is presumed to be correct on appeal, and all intendments and presumptions are indulged in favor of its correctness. [Citation.]” {In re Marriage of Nichols (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 661, 670 [ 33 Cal.Rptr.2d 13 ].) B.

2025(Engalla v. Permanente Medical Group, Inc. (1997) 15 Cal.4th 951, 972 .) “ ‘General principles of contract law determine whether the parties have entered a binding agreement to arbitrate.’ ” (Pinnacle Museum Tower Assn. v. Pinnacle Market Development (US), LLC (2012) 55 Cal.4th 223, 236 .) In resolving a petition to compel arbitration, “the trial court sits as the trier of fact, weighing all the affidavits, declarations, and other documentary evidence, as well as oral testimony received at the court’s discretion, to reach a final determination.” (Engalla, at p. 972.) “We review de novo the sup

2023(Carmona v. Lincoln Millennium Car Wash, Inc. (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 74, 83 .) “We use general principles of California contract law to determine the enforceability of [an] arbitration agreement.” (Mission Viejo Emergency Medical Associates v. Beta Healthcare Group (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 1146, 1153 .) “ ‘The party seeking to compel arbitration bears the burden of proving the existence of an arbitration agreement, while the party opposing the petition bears the burden of establishing a defense to the agreement’s enforcement.’ ” (Sandoval-Ryan v. Oleander Holdings LLC (2020) 58 Cal.App.5th 217 ,