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.
26 California opinions name it 1 courts 1997–2025 10 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 |
|---|---|---|
San Bernardino County Children & Family Services v. Kimberly L.green2 sentences2021(In re A.A. (2016) 243 Cal.App.4th 1220, 1239-1240 (A.A.).) “Failure to file a petition for extraordinary writ review within the period specified by rule, to substantively address the specific issues challenged, or to support that challenge by an adequate record shall preclude subsequent review by appeal of the findings and orders made pursuant to this section.” (§ 366.26, subd. (l)(2).) “ ‘When the court orders a hearing under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26, the court must advise all parties and, if present, the child’s parent, guardian, or adult relative, that if the party wish 2021(In re A.A. (2016) 243 Cal.App.4th 1220, 1239-1240 (A.A.).) “Failure to file a petition for extraordinary writ review within the period specified by rule, to substantively address the specific issues challenged, or to support that challenge by an adequate record shall preclude subsequent review by appeal of the findings and orders made pursuant to this section.” (§ 366.26, subd. (l)(2).) “ ‘When the court orders a hearing under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26, the court must advise all parties and, if present, the child’s parent, guardian, or adult relative, that if the party wish | 2 | 2 |
Santa Clara County Department of Family & Children's Services v. F.S.green2 sentences2023(See § 366.26, subd. (l)(3); [Cal. Rules of Court,] rules 8.450, 8.452; see also [Cal. Rules of Court,] rule 8.403(b)(1).)” (In re A.H. (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 337, 347 .) “Failure to file a petition for extraordinary writ review within the period specified by rule, to substantively address the specific issues challenged, or to support that challenge by an adequate record shall preclude subsequent review by appeal of the findings and orders made pursuant to this section.” (§ 366.26, subd. (l)(2).) Notice of the parent’s right to writ review of the setting order “must be given orally to those pr 2014(Rule 5.590(b).) ‘Within one day after the court orders the hearing under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26, the advisement must be sent by first- class mail by the clerk of the court to the last known address of any party who is not present when the court orders the hearing under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26.’ (Rule 5.590(b)(2).) Copies of Petition for Extraordinary Writ (form JV- 825) and Notice of Intent to File Writ Petition and Request for Record (form JV-820) ‘must accompany all mailed notices informing the parties of their rights.’ (Rule 5.590(b)(4).) Judicial | 1 | 2 |
In Re Precious J.green2 sentences1999DCFS contends that mother waived this issue by failing to assert her right to have such information included in the report, citing In re Aaron B. (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 843 [ 54 Cal.Rptr.2d 27 ] and In re Crystal J. (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 407, 411 [ 15 Cal.Rptr.2d 613 ]; mother responds that because it is DCFS’s burden to establish the adoptability of the minor, it did not meet that burden when it failed to assess the relationship between Urayna and her grandmother, so waiver is not applicable, citing In re Precious J. (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 1463, 1475-1476 [ 50 Cal.Rptr.2d 385 ]. 1999DCFS contends that mother waived this issue by failing to assert her right to have such information included in the report, citing In re Aaron B. (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 843 [ 54 Cal.Rptr.2d 27 ] and In re Crystal J. (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 407, 411 [ 15 Cal.Rptr.2d 613 ]; mother responds that because it is DCFS’s burden to establish the adoptability of the minor, it did not meet that burden when it failed to assess the relationship between Urayna and her grandmother, so waiver is not applicable, citing In re Precious J. (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 1463, 1475-1476 [ 50 Cal.Rptr.2d 385 ]. | 1 | 2 |
In Re Crystal J.green2 sentences1999DCFS contends that mother waived this issue by failing to assert her right to have such information included in the report, citing In re Aaron B. (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 843 [ 54 Cal.Rptr.2d 27 ] and In re Crystal J. (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 407, 411 [ 15 Cal.Rptr.2d 613 ]; mother responds that because it is DCFS’s burden to establish the adoptability of the minor, it did not meet that burden when it failed to assess the relationship between Urayna and her grandmother, so waiver is not applicable, citing In re Precious J. (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 1463, 1475-1476 [ 50 Cal.Rptr.2d 385 ]. 1999DCFS contends that mother waived this issue by failing to assert her right to have such information included in the report, citing In re Aaron B. (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 843 [ 54 Cal.Rptr.2d 27 ] and In re Crystal J. (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 407, 411 [ 15 Cal.Rptr.2d 613 ]; mother responds that because it is DCFS’s burden to establish the adoptability of the minor, it did not meet that burden when it failed to assess the relationship between Urayna and her grandmother, so waiver is not applicable, citing In re Precious J. (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 1463, 1475-1476 [ 50 Cal.Rptr.2d 385 ]. | 1 | 2 |
San Francisco Human Services Agency v. Karen R.green1 sentence2024(In re A.M. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 1067 , 1075-1076 & fn. 2; see § 361.5, subd. (c).) Thus, reunification services may be granted only where the court “finds that, based on competent evidence, those services are likely to prevent reabuse or continued neglect of the child or that failure to try reunification will be detrimental to the child because the child is closely and positively attached to that parent.” (§ 361.5, subd. (c); In re A.M., at p. 1076 & fn. 2 [a parent cannot “evade the requirements of section 361.5, subdivision (c), merely by waiting a few months and then seeking relief under | 1 | 1 |
In Re Megan B.green1 sentence2022(In re R.R. (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 1264, 1279 ; In re Megan B. (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 942, 953 [juvenile court vested with broad discretion concerning visitation].) Here, the court maintained weekly visitation but reduced it from two hours per week to one hour per week, which complies with section 366.21’s 14 mandate of continued visitation. | 1 | 1 |
In Re Shawna M.green1 sentence2022Where the parent is unsuccessful and the court terminates reunification services, “the parents’ interest in the care, custody and companionship of the child are no longer paramount.” (In re Stephanie M. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 295, 317 (Stephanie M.); accord, In re Marilyn H. (1993) 5 Cal.4th 295, 309 .) Instead, “the focus shifts to the needs of the child for permanency and stability.” (Marilyn H., at p. 309.) Despite this shift, “[i]n any case in which the court orders that a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26 shall be held, . . . [t]he court shall continue to permit the parent . . . to visit the c | 1 | 1 |
In Re Stephanie M.green1 sentence2022Where the parent is unsuccessful and the court terminates reunification services, “the parents’ interest in the care, custody and companionship of the child are no longer paramount.” (In re Stephanie M. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 295, 317 (Stephanie M.); accord, In re Marilyn H. (1993) 5 Cal.4th 295, 309 .) Instead, “the focus shifts to the needs of the child for permanency and stability.” (Marilyn H., at p. 309.) Despite this shift, “[i]n any case in which the court orders that a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26 shall be held, . . . [t]he court shall continue to permit the parent . . . to visit the c | 1 | 1 |
In Re Marilyn Hgreen1 sentence2022Where the parent is unsuccessful and the court terminates reunification services, “the parents’ interest in the care, custody and companionship of the child are no longer paramount.” (In re Stephanie M. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 295, 317 (Stephanie M.); accord, In re Marilyn H. (1993) 5 Cal.4th 295, 309 .) Instead, “the focus shifts to the needs of the child for permanency and stability.” (Marilyn H., at p. 309.) Despite this shift, “[i]n any case in which the court orders that a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26 shall be held, . . . [t]he court shall continue to permit the parent . . . to visit the c | 1 | 1 |
In Re Kristin H.green1 sentence2021(See In re Kristin H. (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1635, 1668 [parent in juvenile dependency proceeding claiming ineffective assistance of counsel “must demonstrate that it is ‘reasonably probable that a result more favorable to the appealing party would have been reached in the absence of the error’ ”], quoting People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 .) 19 230 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1193–1194.) However, a different burden applies in a case such as this, where a party “petitions the court prior to an order terminating parental rights, to modify the order that reunification services were not needed pur | 1 | 1 |
Wiencke v. Bibbygreen1 sentence2021(See, e.g., Wiencke v. Bibby (1910) 15 Cal.App. 50, 53 [“ ‘The power of a court to vacate a judgment or order void upon its face is not extinguished by lapse of time, but may be exercised whenever the matter is brought to the attention of the court. . . . | 1 | 1 |
S.T. v. Superior Courtgreen1 sentence2014(M.V., at p. 176; see also S.T. v. Superior Court (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1009, 1015-1016 .) If the court at the six-month review hearing exercises its discretion to set a .26 hearing within 120 days, it must terminate reunification services at that time: “In any case in which the court orders that a hearing pursuant to Section failed to participate regularly and make substantive progress in a court-ordered treatment plan, the court may schedule a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26 within 120 days. | 1 | 1 |
| In Re Alexandria Y.green | 1 | 1 |
| In Re Hunter S.green | 1 | 1 |
| San Diego County Health & Human Services Agency v. E.L.green | 1 | 1 |
| Michael G. v. Superior Courtgreen | 1 | 1 |
| In Re Diana G.green | 1 | 1 |
| In Re Leo M.green | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Cathina W. v. Bessie W.
green
2 sentences2023(In re Frank R. (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 532, 539 ; In re Lauren Z. (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1102, 1110 ; In re Harmony B. (2005) 125 Cal.App.4th 831, 838-839 ; In re Maria S. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 1032, 1038 ; In re 7 Undesignated rules references are to the California Rules of Court. 9 Rashad B. (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 442, 450 ; In re Cathina W. (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 716, 722-726 .) It is the parent’s burden to show good cause for failure to file a notice of intent and request for record and a writ petition pursuant to section 366.26, subdivision (l). 2015(Rule 5.590(b).) “Within one day after the court orders the hearing under … section 366.26, the advisement must be sent by first-class mail by the clerk of the court to the last known address of any party who is not present when the court orders the hearing under 4 All further rule references are to the California Rules of Court. 10. … section 366.26.” (Rule 5.590(b)(2).) Copies of form JV-825 and form JV-820 “must accompany all mailed notices informing the parties of their rights.” (Rule 5.590(b)(4).) In In re Cathina W. (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 716 (Cathina W.), on which mother relies, the appe | 3 | 2013–2023 |
In Re Lauren Z.
green
2 sentences2023(In re Frank R. (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 532, 539 ; In re Lauren Z. (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1102, 1110 ; In re Harmony B. (2005) 125 Cal.App.4th 831, 838-839 ; In re Maria S. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 1032, 1038 ; In re 7 Undesignated rules references are to the California Rules of Court. 9 Rashad B. (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 442, 450 ; In re Cathina W. (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 716, 722-726 .) It is the parent’s burden to show good cause for failure to file a notice of intent and request for record and a writ petition pursuant to section 366.26, subdivision (l). 2016(In re Frank R., supra, 192 Cal.App.4th at p. 539 ; In re Lauren Z., supra, 158 Cal.App.4th at p. 1110 ; In re Harmony B., supra, 125 Cal.App.4th at p. 839 ; In re Maria S., supra, 82 Cal.App.4th at p. 1038 ; In re Rashad B., supra, 16 Cal.App.4th at p. 450; In re Cathina W, supra, 68 Cal.App.4th at pp. 722-726.) Mother contends good cause is shown here to excuse her failure to timely file a writ petition because the written notice sent to her was incomplete, untimely, and was not mailed to her last known address. | 2 | 2016–2023 |
In Re Harmony B.
green
2 sentences2023(In re Frank R. (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 532, 539 ; In re Lauren Z. (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1102, 1110 ; In re Harmony B. (2005) 125 Cal.App.4th 831, 838-839 ; In re Maria S. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 1032, 1038 ; In re 7 Undesignated rules references are to the California Rules of Court. 9 Rashad B. (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 442, 450 ; In re Cathina W. (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 716, 722-726 .) It is the parent’s burden to show good cause for failure to file a notice of intent and request for record and a writ petition pursuant to section 366.26, subdivision (l). 2016(In re Frank R., supra, 192 Cal.App.4th at p. 539 ; In re Lauren Z., supra, 158 Cal.App.4th at p. 1110 ; In re Harmony B., supra, 125 Cal.App.4th at p. 839 ; In re Maria S., supra, 82 Cal.App.4th at p. 1038 ; In re Rashad B., supra, 16 Cal.App.4th at p. 450; In re Cathina W, supra, 68 Cal.App.4th at pp. 722-726.) Mother contends good cause is shown here to excuse her failure to timely file a writ petition because the written notice sent to her was incomplete, untimely, and was not mailed to her last known address. | 2 | 2016–2023 |
In Re Maria S.
green
2 sentences2023(In re Frank R. (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 532, 539 ; In re Lauren Z. (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1102, 1110 ; In re Harmony B. (2005) 125 Cal.App.4th 831, 838-839 ; In re Maria S. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 1032, 1038 ; In re 7 Undesignated rules references are to the California Rules of Court. 9 Rashad B. (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 442, 450 ; In re Cathina W. (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 716, 722-726 .) It is the parent’s burden to show good cause for failure to file a notice of intent and request for record and a writ petition pursuant to section 366.26, subdivision (l). 2016(In re Frank R., supra, 192 Cal.App.4th at p. 539 ; In re Lauren Z., supra, 158 Cal.App.4th at p. 1110 ; In re Harmony B., supra, 125 Cal.App.4th at p. 839 ; In re Maria S., supra, 82 Cal.App.4th at p. 1038 ; In re Rashad B., supra, 16 Cal.App.4th at p. 450; In re Cathina W, supra, 68 Cal.App.4th at pp. 722-726.) Mother contends good cause is shown here to excuse her failure to timely file a writ petition because the written notice sent to her was incomplete, untimely, and was not mailed to her last known address. | 2 | 2016–2023 |
Los Angeles County Department of Children & Family Services v. Frank R.
green
2 sentences2023(In re Frank R. (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 532, 539 ; In re Lauren Z. (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1102, 1110 ; In re Harmony B. (2005) 125 Cal.App.4th 831, 838-839 ; In re Maria S. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 1032, 1038 ; In re 7 Undesignated rules references are to the California Rules of Court. 9 Rashad B. (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 442, 450 ; In re Cathina W. (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 716, 722-726 .) It is the parent’s burden to show good cause for failure to file a notice of intent and request for record and a writ petition pursuant to section 366.26, subdivision (l). 2016(In re Frank R., supra, 192 Cal.App.4th at p. 539 ; In re Lauren Z., supra, 158 Cal.App.4th at p. 1110 ; In re Harmony B., supra, 125 Cal.App.4th at p. 839 ; In re Maria S., supra, 82 Cal.App.4th at p. 1038 ; In re Rashad B., supra, 16 Cal.App.4th at p. 450; In re Cathina W, supra, 68 Cal.App.4th at pp. 722-726.) Mother contends good cause is shown here to excuse her failure to timely file a writ petition because the written notice sent to her was incomplete, untimely, and was not mailed to her last known address. | 2 | 2016–2023 |
Riverside County Department of Public Social Services v. Kimberly S.
green
2 sentences2020Thus, even though the parent failed to file a writ petition, he or she can still challenge, on appeal, the order setting a section 366.26 hearing.” (In re Athena P. (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 617, 625 .) Mother contends she has demonstrated good cause to be relieved of the writ requirement because the court was required to send an advisement of the necessity to file a writ to the Burbank address listed on her JV-140 form, which it did not do. 2013As explained above, relief from the waiver rule is a function of due process 5 Rule 5.590(b) provides, in part: “When the court orders a hearing under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26, the court must advise all parties and, if present, the child’s parent, guardian, or adult relative, that if the party wishes to preserve any right to review on appeal of the order setting the hearing under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26, the party is required to seek an extraordinary writ by filing a Notice of Intent to File Writ Petition and Request for Record (California Rules of Cour | 2 | 2013–2020 |
In Re Aaron B.
green
2 sentences1999DCFS contends that mother waived this issue by failing to assert her right to have such information included in the report, citing In re Aaron B. (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 843 [ 54 Cal.Rptr.2d 27 ] and In re Crystal J. (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 407, 411 [ 15 Cal.Rptr.2d 613 ]; mother responds that because it is DCFS’s burden to establish the adoptability of the minor, it did not meet that burden when it failed to assess the relationship between Urayna and her grandmother, so waiver is not applicable, citing In re Precious J. (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 1463, 1475-1476 [ 50 Cal.Rptr.2d 385 ]. 1999DCFS contends that mother waived this issue by failing to assert her right to have such information included in the report, citing In re Aaron B. (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 843 [ 54 Cal.Rptr.2d 27 ] and In re Crystal J. (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 407, 411 [ 15 Cal.Rptr.2d 613 ]; mother responds that because it is DCFS’s burden to establish the adoptability of the minor, it did not meet that burden when it failed to assess the relationship between Urayna and her grandmother, so waiver is not applicable, citing In re Precious J. (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 1463, 1475-1476 [ 50 Cal.Rptr.2d 385 ]. | 2 | 1999–1999 |
San Benardino County Children & Family Services v. M.P.
green
1 sentence2025Section 366.25, subdivision (b)(1)(G) provides that, “[w]henever a court orders that a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26 shall be held, it shall direct the agency supervising the child and the county adoption agency, or the State Department of Social Services when it is acting as an adoption agency, to prepare an assessment that shall include [¶] . . . [¶] [i]n the case of an Indian child, . . . an assessment of the likelihood that the child will be adopted, when, in consultation with the child’s tribe, a tribal customary adoption, as defined in Section 366.24, is recommended.” A “ ‘ “tribal | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Le Francois v. Goel
green
1 sentence2024(See Le Francois v. Goel (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1094, 1107 .) Here, it seems clear the judge reviewed additional evidence regarding Pamela’s job contacts and became convinced that its earlier order reducing support payments was in error. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Lake County Department of Social Services v. K.B.
green
1 sentence2024(In re A.M. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 1067 , 1075-1076 & fn. 2; see § 361.5, subd. (c).) Thus, reunification services may be granted only where the court “finds that, based on competent evidence, those services are likely to prevent reabuse or continued neglect of the child or that failure to try reunification will be detrimental to the child because the child is closely and positively attached to that parent.” (§ 361.5, subd. (c); In re A.M., at p. 1076 & fn. 2 [a parent cannot “evade the requirements of section 361.5, subdivision (c), merely by waiting a few months and then seeking relief under | 1 | 2024–2024 |
In Re Rashad B.
green
1 sentence2023(In re Frank R. (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 532, 539 ; In re Lauren Z. (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1102, 1110 ; In re Harmony B. (2005) 125 Cal.App.4th 831, 838-839 ; In re Maria S. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 1032, 1038 ; In re 7 Undesignated rules references are to the California Rules of Court. 9 Rashad B. (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 442, 450 ; In re Cathina W. (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 716, 722-726 .) It is the parent’s burden to show good cause for failure to file a notice of intent and request for record and a writ petition pursuant to section 366.26, subdivision (l). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
cluster 460926
green
1 sentence2022(Ibid.) The court found that sealing the search warrant affidavit was justified to protect minors from the trauma and embarrassment of disclosure of the details of the defendant’s alleged crimes. ( Jackson, supra, at p. 1023 ; NBC Subsidiary, supra, 20 Cal.4th at pp. 1206-1207.) The trial court sealed the grand jury transcripts for the same reason. ( Jackson, supra, at p. 1027 .) In addition, the appellate court noted “the transcript contains a substantial amount of testimony involving criminal allegations against numerous unindicted coconspirators, whose privacy interests also would be violat | 1 | 2022–2022 |
In Re RR
green
1 sentence2022(In re R.R. (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 1264, 1279 ; In re Megan B. (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 942, 953 [juvenile court vested with broad discretion concerning visitation].) Here, the court maintained weekly visitation but reduced it from two hours per week to one hour per week, which complies with section 366.21’s 14 mandate of continued visitation. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
People v. Jackson
green
2 sentences2022(Jackson, supra, 128 Cal.App.4th at p. 1014 .) The Court of Appeal affirmed the orders with the exception of the indictment where it ordered only that the names of unindicted coconspirators be redacted. 2022(Ibid.) The court found that sealing the search warrant affidavit was justified to protect minors from the trauma and embarrassment of disclosure of the details of the defendant’s alleged crimes. ( Jackson, supra, at p. 1023 ; NBC Subsidiary, supra, 20 Cal.4th at pp. 1206-1207.) The trial court sealed the grand jury transcripts for the same reason. ( Jackson, supra, at p. 1027 .) In addition, the appellate court noted “the transcript contains a substantial amount of testimony involving criminal allegations against numerous unindicted coconspirators, whose privacy interests also would be violat | 1 | 2022–2022 |
People v. Watson
green
1 sentence2021(See In re Kristin H. (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1635, 1668 [parent in juvenile dependency proceeding claiming ineffective assistance of counsel “must demonstrate that it is ‘reasonably probable that a result more favorable to the appealing party would have been reached in the absence of the error’ ”], quoting People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836 .) 19 230 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1193–1194.) However, a different burden applies in a case such as this, where a party “petitions the court prior to an order terminating parental rights, to modify the order that reunification services were not needed pur | 1 | 2021–2021 |
In Re Carl R.
green
1 sentence2015(Sarah M., at p. 1650.) “[A]s a general rule, the suitability of the prospective adoptive family does not constitute a legal impediment to adoption and is irrelevant to the issue of whether a child is likely to be adopted.” (In re Carl R. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1051, 1061 .) However, the statutory scheme requires a “preliminary assessment” (§ 366.21, subd. (i)(1)(D)) of the prospective adoptive parent and “[a]n analysis of the likelihood” that the minors would be adopted (§ 366.21, subd. (i)(1)(G)) when the court orders a hearing pursuant to section 366.26 (§ 366.21, subd. (i)). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
In Re Janee J.
green
1 sentence2013(See, e.g., In re T.W., supra, 197 Cal.App.4th at pp. 730-731; Janee J., supra, 74 Cal.App.4th at p. 208 .) Accordingly, the mere failure to have the forms available in the courtroom, without a showing as to how the parents were deprived of due process, is not enough to avoid the waiver rule. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| In Re Cjw green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| Los Angeles County Department of Children & Family Services v. H.W. green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
In Re SB
red
1 sentence2013(In re S.B. (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1287 , 1293; In re C.J.W. (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 1075, 1080 .) ( 2 The whereabouts of the alleged father, Roberto G., was unknown as was R.H.'s ability and willingness to parent Y.H. 3 The JV-183 form states: "The court orders a hearing on the form JV-180 request because the best interest of the child may be promoted by the request." The form does not specify whether the court was ordering a full evidentiary hearing or a prima facie hearing as occurred here. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| In Re Heritage Bond Litigation green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| In Re Baby Boy L. green | 1 | 1997–1997 |
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.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.