inquiry error in California

2023(See E.C., supra, 85 Cal.App.5th at p. 157 [explaining that when assessing whether an inquiry error is prejudicial and requires reversal, it is not always appropriate to solely “focus on the specific deficiency identified by the appellant” because “courts must take care to assess the inquiry as a whole for adequacy”].) Second, “Indian tribes have interests protected by ICWA that are separate and distinct from the interests of parents of Indian children.” (Isaiah W., supra, 1 Cal.5th at p. 13 .) Our Supreme Court has made clear that a parent cannot waive ICWA notice because it interferes with t

2023(See E.C., supra, 85 Cal.App.5th at p. 157 [explaining that when assessing whether an inquiry error is prejudicial and requires reversal, it is not always appropriate to solely “focus on the specific deficiency identified by the appellant” because “courts must take care to assess the inquiry as a whole for adequacy”].) Second, “Indian tribes have interests protected by ICWA that are separate and distinct from the interests of parents of Indian children.” (Isaiah W., supra, 1 Cal.5th at p. 13 .) Our Supreme Court has made clear that a parent cannot waive ICWA notice because it interferes with t

2026Analysis The trial court erred in not completing its inquiry into the children’s possible Indian heritage. (§ 224.2, subd. (b); see In re Y.W. (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 542 , 555 [juvenile court has a duty “to ensure the Department adequately investigated the children’s possible Indian ancestry through [Mother’s] side of the family”]; In re Rylei S. (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 309 , 320.) The juvenile court should have followed up with DCFS as to its efforts to ascertain whether the children had possible Cherokee heritage through Mother’s side of the family. “[T]he court has a responsibility to ascertai

2022(See People v. Wright (2006) 40 Cal.4th 81, 98-99 .) The inquiry under this standard “ ‘is not whether, in a trial that occurred without the error, a guilty verdict would surely have been rendered, but whether the guilty verdict actually rendered in this trial was surely unattributable to the error.’ [Citation.] This standard is much higher than substantial evidence review.

2022Remand “would be an empty formality” and contrary to “considerations of judicial economy . . . and the child[’s] need for stability.” ( E.W., supra, 170 Cal.App.4th at pp. 401–402; see also In re A.B. (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 832 , 843 (A.B.) [taking judicial notice of evidence that parents denied Indian heritage in judicial proceedings in another state court, thus holding the inquiry error harmless and noting that remand would serve “no purpose other than delay”].) Mother’s reliance upon In re Benjamin M. (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 735 (Benjamin M.) in urging us to remand is unpersuasive.

2020(County of San Joaquin v. State Water Resources Control Bd. (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 1144, 1149 (San Joaquin).) A person subject to service of process whose joinder will not deprive the court of subject matter jurisdiction “shall be joined as a party in the action if (1) in his absence complete relief cannot be accorded among those already parties or (2) he claims an interest relating to the subject of the action and is so situated that the disposition of the action in his absence may (i) as a practical matter impair or impede his ability to protect that interest or (ii) leave any of the persons

2020(McKell v. Washington Mutual, Inc., supra, 142 Cal.App.4th at p. 1491 ; Alta-Dena Dairy v. County of San Diego, supra, 271 Cal.App.2d at p. 72 .) In a meet and confer letter, Pinto Lake identified the administrative record as an uncontested foundational fact capable of stipulation.

2020(County of San Joaquin v. State Water Resources Control Bd. (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 1144, 1149 (San Joaquin).) A person subject to service of process whose joinder will not deprive the court of subject matter jurisdiction “shall be joined as a party in the action if (1) in his absence complete relief cannot be accorded among those already parties or (2) he claims an interest relating to the subject of the action and is so situated that the disposition of the action in his absence may (i) as a practical matter impair or impede his ability to protect that interest or (ii) leave any of the persons

2020(McKell v. Washington Mutual, Inc., supra, 142 Cal.App.4th at p. 1491 ; Alta-Dena Dairy v. County of San Diego, supra, 271 Cal.App.2d at p. 72 .) In a meet and confer letter, Pinto Lake identified the administrative record as an uncontested foundational fact capable of stipulation.

2016(People v. Renfro, supra, 125 Cal.App.4th at p. 233 .) Specific enforcement is an appropriate remedy only “when it will implement the reasonable expectations of the parties without binding the trial judge to a disposition that he or she considers unsuitable under all the circumstances.” (People v. Mancheno (1982) 32 Cal.3d 855, 861 .) It is not appropriate if the negotiated sentence was invalid or unauthorized.

2016(People v. Renfro, supra, 125 Cal.App.4th at p. 233 .) Specific enforcement is an appropriate remedy only “when it will implement the reasonable expectations of the parties without binding the trial judge to a disposition that he or she considers unsuitable under all the circumstances.” (People v. Mancheno (1982) 32 Cal.3d 855, 861 .) It is not appropriate if the negotiated sentence was invalid or unauthorized.

2016The breaches of this duty to inquire into Josiah's possible Indian heritage are error that necessitates " 'a limited reversal . . . and remand for proper inquiry and any required notice [that] may be necessary.' " (Noreen G., supra, 181 Cal.App.4th at p. 1387 .) A parent like Tyler " 'does not necessarily waive an ICWA notice issue by failing to raise it below.' " (Id. at p. 1385.) That is because ICWA's notice requirements " ' " 'serve the interests of the Indian tribes "irrespective of the position of the parents" and cannot be waived by the parent.' " ' " (Ibid.) We acknowledge that not eve

2016(Noreen G., supra, 181 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1387-1388.) However, where the parent makes an offer of proof on appeal that the child has Indian heritage, the parent establishes a sufficient miscarriage of justice such that the error is not harmless.

2016(People v. Barella (1999) 20 Cal.4th 261, 272 .) The court’s comments did not become part of the plea agreement just because they were made in response to an inquiry by the defense. 4 Even assuming the comments about credits became part of the plea bargain, the remedies for its breach are allowing the defendant to withdraw the plea and specific enforcement of its terms.

2015“In order for the doctrine to apply, ‘“the point of law involved must have been necessary to the prior decision [and] the matter must have been actually presented and determined by the court.”’” (Katz v. Los Gatos-Saratoga Joint Union High School District (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 47, 62 .) To determine whether any of the XL Summary Judgment Defendants are vicariously liable for the actions of XL Specialty under the alter ego doctrine, the inquiry requires analysis into whether there exists both (1) a unity of interest and ownership between the corporation (here, XL Specialty) and its equitable o

2015(See Mesler v. Bragg Management Co. (1985) 39 Cal.3d 290, 300 .) 4 Because it is founded on equitable principles, application of the alter ego doctrine does not depend on prior court decisions with similar factual scenarios and instead must be considered under the specific circumstances of the case at issue.

2015(In re H.B. (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 115 , 121-122; In re J.N. (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 450, 460-461 .) Here, while it is not clear that there was a failure to inquire, the information V.C. has provided is sufficient to persuade us that it is appropriate to reverse the termination of parental rights and to remand the matter for the limited purpose of obtaining further information from V.C. and giving notice to the pertinent tribe or tribes.

2015(In re H.B. (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 115 , 121-122; In re J.N. (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 450, 460-461 .) Here, while it is not clear that there was a failure to inquire, the information V.C. has provided is sufficient to persuade us that it is appropriate to reverse the termination of parental rights and to remand the matter for the limited purpose of obtaining further information from V.C. and giving notice to the pertinent tribe or tribes.

2015(Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18, 24 .) Respondent argues that defendant’s motion to continue was properly denied because it was not timely made.

2008The court declined to adopt In re J.N. `s procedure for a limited remand because the father failed to show a miscarriage of justice. ( Rebecca R., supra, 143 Cal.App.4th at p. 1430 , 49 Cal.Rptr.3d 951 .) In ruling, the Rebecca R. court observed, "The sole reason an appellate court is put into a position of `speculation' on the matter is the parent's failure or refusal to tell us.

2008The court declined to adopt In re J.N. `s procedure for a limited remand because the father failed to show a miscarriage of justice. ( Rebecca R., supra, 143 Cal.App.4th at p. 1430 , 49 Cal.Rptr.3d 951 .) In ruling, the Rebecca R. court observed, "The sole reason an appellate court is put into a position of `speculation' on the matter is the parent's failure or refusal to tell us.

2005Any duty under state or federal law to conduct such an inquiry or a hearing into a defendant’s competence arises, however, only if the trial court is presented with substantial evidence raising a reasonable doubt as to the defendant’s competence. (§§ 1367, 1368; Drope v. Missouri, supra, 420 U.S. at p. 181 ; Pate v. Robinson, supra, 383 U.S. at pp. 384—386; People v. Welch, supra, 20 Cal.4th at pp. 737-738.) We therefore shall consider defendant’s contention as a claim that Judge Nelson erroneously failed to declare a doubt and to hold a hearing regarding defendant’s competence to stand trial.

1991(See generally § 837; People v. Carter (1981) 117 Cal.App.3d 735, 738-739 ; 73 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 291 , 292-295 (1990).) Specifically, we are asked whether a private 1 Both the inquiry and this analysis assume and are limited to a misdemeanor arrest. 2 All section references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified. 1. 90-806 security guard may, pursuant to a telephonic delegation of authority by a peace officer, issue a "citation" and release the person arrested.3 Section 853.6 sets forth the procedures for issuing citations in misdemeanor cases.