two prong test in California

2016(In re Bailey J. (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 1308, 1314-1315 .) “Because a parent’s claim to such an exception is evaluated in light of the Legislature’s preference for adoption, it is only in exceptional circumstances that a court will choose a permanent plan other than adoption. [Citation.]” (In re Scott B. (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 452, 469 .) To establish the parent-child relationship exception, mother must show she maintained regular contact and visitation, and that Aiden would benefit from continuing the relationship. (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i); In re Autumn H. (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 567, 575

2015"The exception applies only where the [trial] court finds regular visits and contact have 5 continued or developed a significant, positive, emotional attachment from child to parent.' " (In re Casey D. (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 38, 50 .) The trial court found that appellants met the first prong by maintaining regular visitation but visitation was minimal after mother suffered a drug relapse.

2021This exception is set forth in section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B)(i) which states: ‘[T]he court shall terminate parental rights unless either of the following applies: . . . . [¶] (B) The court finds a compelling reason for determining that termination would be detrimental to the child due to one or more of the following circumstances: [¶] (i) The parents have maintained regular visitation and contact with the child and the child would benefit from continuing the relationship.’” (In re Noah G., supra, 247 Cal.App.4th at p. 1300 .) “Application of the beneficial parent-child relationship exc

2021This exception is set forth in section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B)(i) which states: ‘[T]he court shall terminate parental rights unless either of the following applies: [¶] . . . [¶] (B) The court finds a compelling reason for determining that termination would be detrimental to the child due to one or more of the following circumstances: [¶] (i) The parents have maintained regular visitation and contact with the child and the child would benefit from continuing the relationship.’” (In re Noah G., supra, 247 Cal.App.4th at p. 1300 .) “Application of the beneficial parent-child relationship e

2021Rather, the second prong requires a parent to prove that the bond 17 between the parent and child is sufficiently strong that the child would suffer detriment from its termination. [Citation.] In applying this exception, the court must take into account numerous variables, including but not limited to (1) the age of the child, (2) the portion of the child’s life spent in the parent’s custody, (3) the “‘positive’” or “‘negative’” effect of interaction between parent and child, and (4) the child’s unique needs.” (In re Grace P. (2017) 8 Cal.App.5th 605, 612-613 .) “The [parent] has the burden of

2021Rather, the second prong requires a parent to prove that the bond 17 between the parent and child is sufficiently strong that the child would suffer detriment from its termination. [Citation.] In applying this exception, the court must take into account numerous variables, including but not limited to (1) the age of the child, (2) the portion of the child’s life spent in the parent’s custody, (3) the “‘positive’” or “‘negative’” effect of interaction between parent and child, and (4) the child’s unique needs.” (In re Grace P. (2017) 8 Cal.App.5th 605, 612-613 .) “The [parent] has the burden of

1990Appeals Bd. (1976) 16 Cal.3d 595 ( 128 Cal.Rptr. 417 , 546 P.2d 1361 )] devised a two prong test to determine applicability of the special risk—exception.

1990Appeals Bd. (1976) 16 Cal.3d 595 ( 128 Cal.Rptr. 417 , 546 P.2d 1361 )] devised a two prong test to determine applicability of the special risk—exception.

2025Co. (1941) 19 Cal.2d 8, 12 .) “Synthesizing concepts,” our Supreme Court “devised a two prong test to determine applicability of the special risk exception. . . . [T]he exception will apply (1) if ‘but for’ the employment the employee would not have been at the location where the injury occurred and (2) if ‘the risk is distinctive in nature or quantitatively greater than risks common to the public.’ ” ( Parks, supra, at p. 590 .) The Board applied the two-prong test but neither the Board nor Hernandez supply any authority for rendering the zone of employment exception as large as an entire com

2025Co. (1941) 19 Cal.2d 8, 12 .) “Synthesizing concepts,” our Supreme Court “devised a two prong test to determine applicability of the special risk exception. . . . [T]he exception will apply (1) if ‘but for’ the employment the employee would not have been at the location where the injury occurred and (2) if ‘the risk is distinctive in nature or quantitatively greater than risks common to the public.’ ” ( Parks, supra, at p. 590 .) The Board applied the two-prong test but neither the Board nor Hernandez supply any authority for rendering the zone of employment exception as large as an entire com

2022(People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836-837 .) As noted ante, when a defendant requests a continuance without proper notice, section 1050, subdivision (d), outlines a two prong test for determining good cause.

2022In fact, “under either prong of the two- prong test, or under a general foreseeability test, both foreseeability and a nexus between the tortious act and the employment are required.” (Halliburton, supra, 220 Cal.App.4th at p. 103 .) As Halliburton explained, “ ‘Respondeat superior liability demands a nexus between the employee’s tort and the employment to ensure that liability is properly placed on the employer.

2021Rather, the second prong requires a parent to prove that the bond between the parent and child is sufficiently strong that the child would suffer detriment from its termination. [Citation.] In applying this exception, the court must take into account numerous variables, including but not limited to (1) the age of the child, (2) the portion of the child’s life spent in the parent’s custody, (3) the “‘positive’” or “‘negative’” effect of interaction between parent and child, and (4) the child’s unique needs.” (In re Grace P. (2017) 8 Cal.App.5th 605, 612-613 .) “The [parent] has the burden of pr

2020(Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668, 687 .) However, the current record does not establish either prong of the Strickland test.

2016(In re Bailey J. (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 1308, 1314-1315 .) “Because a parent’s claim to such an exception is evaluated in light of the Legislature’s preference for adoption, it is only in exceptional circumstances that a court will choose a permanent plan other than adoption. [Citation.]” (In re Scott B. (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 452, 469 .) To establish the parent-child relationship exception, mother must show she maintained regular contact and visitation, and that Aiden would benefit from continuing the relationship. (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i); In re Autumn H. (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 567, 575

2016(In re Angel B., supra, 97 Cal.App.4th at p. 467 ; In re Amber M. (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 681, 689 .) The parent must show “more than frequent and loving contact, an emotional bond with the child, or pleasant visits. [Citation.]” (In re Dakota H. (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 212, 229 .) Aiden, who has never lived with mother, was only eight months old at the section 366.26 hearing.

2016(In re Bailey J. (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 1308, 1314-1315 .) “Because a parent’s claim to such an exception is evaluated in light of the Legislature’s preference for adoption, it is only in exceptional circumstances that a court will choose a permanent plan other than adoption. [Citation.]” (In re Scott B. (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 452, 469 .) To establish the parent-child relationship exception, mother must show she maintained regular contact and visitation, and that Aiden would benefit from continuing the relationship. (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i); In re Autumn H. (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 567, 575

2016(In re Angel B., supra, 97 Cal.App.4th at p. 467 ; In re Amber M. (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 681, 689 .) The parent must show “more than frequent and loving contact, an emotional bond with the child, or pleasant visits. [Citation.]” (In re Dakota H. (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 212, 229 .) Aiden, who has never lived with mother, was only eight months old at the section 366.26 hearing.

2016(In re Bailey J. (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 1308, 1314-1315 .) “Because a parent’s claim to such an exception is evaluated in light of the Legislature’s preference for adoption, it is only in exceptional circumstances that a court will choose a permanent plan other than adoption. [Citation.]” (In re Scott B. (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 452, 469 .) To establish the parent-child relationship exception, mother must show she maintained regular contact and visitation, and that Aiden would benefit from continuing the relationship. (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i); In re Autumn H. (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 567, 575

2016(In re Angel B., supra, 97 Cal.App.4th at p. 467 ; In re Amber M. (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 681, 689 .) The parent must show “more than frequent and loving contact, an emotional bond with the child, or pleasant visits. [Citation.]” (In re Dakota H. (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 212, 229 .) Aiden, who has never lived with mother, was only eight months old at the section 366.26 hearing.

2016(Mundy v. Lenc (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 1401, 1408 .) I.

2015Although a lone actor can be charged with a gang enhancement (see People v. Rios (2013) 222 Cal.App.4th 542, 564 ), there is no substantial evidence that appellant dissuaded S.M. " 'for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with any criminal street gang' (the gang-related prong), 'with the specific intent to promote, further, or assist in any criminal conduct by gang members' (the specific intent prong)." (Ibid., citing § 186.22, subd. (b)(1) and Albillar, supra, 51 Cal.4th at pp. 59-60].) It is a two prong requirement which provides "a nexus sufficient to alleviate due proces

2015Although a lone actor can be charged with a gang enhancement (see People v. Rios (2013) 222 Cal.App.4th 542, 564 ), there is no substantial evidence that appellant dissuaded S.M. " 'for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with any criminal street gang' (the gang-related prong), 'with the specific intent to promote, further, or assist in any criminal conduct by gang members' (the specific intent prong)." (Ibid., citing § 186.22, subd. (b)(1) and Albillar, supra, 51 Cal.4th at pp. 59-60].) It is a two prong requirement which provides "a nexus sufficient to alleviate due proces

2015Although a lone actor can be charged with a gang enhancement (see People v. Rios (2013) 222 Cal.App.4th 542, 564 ), there is no substantial evidence that appellant dissuaded S.M. " 'for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with any criminal street gang' (the gang-related prong), 'with the specific intent to promote, further, or assist in any criminal conduct by gang members' (the specific intent prong)." (Ibid., citing § 186.22, subd. (b)(1) and Albillar, supra, 51 Cal.4th at pp. 59-60].) It is a two prong requirement which provides "a nexus sufficient to alleviate due proces

2013Gates, supra, 462 U.S. 213 , fn. omitted, emphasis added.) Reliability concerns can be assuaged by facts tending to show the credibility of either the informant or the information provided (or both).

2013Gates, supra, 462 U.S. 213 , fn. omitted, emphasis added.) Reliability concerns can be assuaged by facts tending to show the credibility of either the informant or the information provided (or both).

2013Aguilar set forth the original phrasing of the two prong test as follows: “Although an affidavit may be based on hearsay information and need not reflect the direct personal observations of the affiant, [citation], the magistrate must be informed of some of the underlying circumstances from which the informant concluded that the narcotics were where he claimed they were, and some of the underlying circumstances from which the officer concluded that the informant … was „credible‟ or his information „reliable.‟ ” (Aguilar, supra, 378 U.S. at 114 revd.