confidence standard in California

2026(Patricia W. v. Superior Court (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 397, 419 [reasonable services finding]; Angela S. v. Superior Court (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 758, 763 [substantial risk-of-detriment finding].) Under this standard, the appellate court does not reweigh evidence or exercise independent judgment, but reviews the record “in the light most favorable to the court’s determinations and draw[s] all reasonable inferences from the evidence to support the findings and orders.” (Kevin R. v. Superior Court (2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 676 , 688-689.) In undertaking this review, we are mindful that “appellate rev

2025(Patricia W. v. Superior Court (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 397, 419 [reasonable services finding]; Angela S. v. Superior Court (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 758, 763 [substantial risk-of-detriment finding].) Under this standard, the appellate court does not reweigh evidence or exercise independent judgment, but reviews the record “in the light most favorable to the court’s determinations and draw[s] all reasonable inferences from the evidence to support the findings and orders.” (Kevin R. v. Superior Court (2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 676 , 688–689.) In undertaking this review, we are mindful that “appellate rev

2026(Patricia W. v. Superior Court (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 397, 419 [reasonable services finding]; Angela S. v. Superior Court (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 758, 763 [substantial risk-of-detriment finding].) Under this standard, the appellate court does not reweigh evidence or exercise independent judgment, but reviews the record “in the light most favorable to the court’s determinations and draw[s] all reasonable inferences from the evidence to support the findings and orders.” (Kevin R. v. Superior Court (2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 676 , 688-689.) In undertaking this review, we are mindful that “appellate rev

2025(Patricia W. v. Superior Court (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 397, 419 [reasonable services finding]; Angela S. v. Superior Court (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 758, 763 [substantial risk-of-detriment finding].) Under this standard, the appellate court does not reweigh evidence or exercise independent judgment, but reviews the record “in the light most favorable to the court’s determinations and draw[s] all reasonable inferences from the evidence to support the findings and orders.” (Kevin R. v. Superior Court (2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 676 , 688–689.) In undertaking this review, we are mindful that “appellate rev

2026(Patricia W. v. Superior Court (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 397, 419 [reasonable services finding]; Angela S. v. Superior Court (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 758, 763 [substantial risk-of-detriment finding].) Under this standard, the appellate court does not reweigh evidence or exercise independent judgment, but reviews the record “in the light most favorable to the court’s determinations and draw[s] all reasonable inferences from the evidence to support the findings and orders.” (Kevin R. v. Superior Court (2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 676 , 688-689.) In undertaking this review, we are mindful that “appellate rev

2025(Patricia W. v. Superior Court (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 397, 419 [reasonable services finding]; Angela S. v. Superior Court (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 758, 763 [substantial risk-of-detriment finding].) Under this standard, the appellate court does not reweigh evidence or exercise independent judgment, but reviews the record “in the light most favorable to the court’s determinations and draw[s] all reasonable inferences from the evidence to support the findings and orders.” (Kevin R. v. Superior Court (2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 676 , 688–689.) In undertaking this review, we are mindful that “appellate rev

2026(Patricia W. v. Superior Court (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 397, 419 [reasonable services finding]; Angela S. v. Superior Court (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 758, 763 [substantial risk-of-detriment finding].) Under this standard, the appellate court does not reweigh evidence or exercise independent judgment, but reviews the record “in the light most favorable to the court’s determinations and draw[s] all reasonable inferences from the evidence to support the findings and orders.” (Kevin R. v. Superior Court (2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 676 , 688-689.) In undertaking this review, we are mindful that “appellate rev

2025(Patricia W. v. Superior Court (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 397, 419 [reasonable services finding]; Angela S. v. Superior Court (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 758, 763 [substantial risk-of-detriment finding].) Under this standard, the appellate court does not reweigh evidence or exercise independent judgment, but reviews the record “in the light most favorable to the court’s determinations and draw[s] all reasonable inferences from the evidence to support the findings and orders.” (Kevin R. v. Superior Court (2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 676 , 688–689.) In undertaking this review, we are mindful that “appellate rev

2024(Lameed, supra, 247 Cal.App.4th at p. 397 .) Our “ ‘review of the sufficiency of the evidence in support of a finding requiring clear and convincing proof must account for the level of confidence this standard demands.’ (Conservatorship of O.B. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 989 , 995.) Accordingly, ‘the question before [us] is whether the record as a whole contains substantial evidence from which a reasonable fact finder could have found it highly probable that the fact was true.’ ” (People v. Garcia (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 1048 , 1054, fn. omitted.) In passing, Banerjee asserts neither the court’s written o

2024(People v. Lameed (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 381, 397 .) Our “review of the sufficiency of the evidence in support of a finding requiring clear and convincing proof must account for the level of confidence this standard demands.”2 (Conservatorship of O.B. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 989 , 995.) Accordingly, “the question before [us] is whether the record as a whole contains substantial evidence from which a reasonable fact finder could have found it highly probable that the fact was true.” (Id. at pp. 995-996.) Garcia contends that there are multiple reasons why substantial evidence did not support the trial

2026(In re Cole C. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 900, 917 .) “We review a dispositional order removing a child from a parent for substantial evidence, ‘ “keeping in mind that the trial court was required to make its order based on the higher standard of clear and convincing evidence.” ’ [Citation.] ‘[A]ppellate review of the sufficiency of the evidence in support of a finding requiring clear and convincing proof must account for the level of confidence this standard demands.’ [Citation.] In applying this standard of review, ‘the question before the appellate court is whether the record as a whole contain

2025The focus of the statute is on averting harm to the child.’ [Citation.] The court may consider a parent’s past conduct as well as present circumstances.” (In re N.M. (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 159, 169-170 .) “We review a dispositional order removing a child from a parent for substantial evidence, ‘“keeping in mind that the trial court was required to make its order based on the higher standard of clear and convincing evidence.”’ [Citation.] ‘[A]ppellate review of the sufficiency of the evidence in support of a finding requiring clear and convincing proof must account for the level of confidence t

2024(In re Ashly F. (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 803, 809 .) But “[s]ubstantial evidence does not mean ‘any evidence,’ however,” and the reviewing court must “ultimately consider whether a reasonable trier of fact would make the challenged ruling in light of the entire record.” (In re Isabella F. (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 128, 138 .) “Substantial evidence indicates more than a smidgeon or trace; it must be meaningful and significant and cannot be merely speculative.” (In re Ma.V. (2021) 64 Cal.App.5th 11 , 22; County of Santa Cruz v. City of Watsonville (1985) 177 Cal.App.3d 831, 845 .) “[A]ppellate review

2024The focus of the statute is on averting harm to the child.” (In re Lana S. (2012) 207 Cal.App.4th 94, 105 , internal quotation marks and citations omitted.) “The court may consider a parent’s past conduct as well as present circumstances.” (In re L.O. (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 227 , 245, internal quotation marks omitted.) “We review a dispositional order removing a child from a parent for substantial evidence, ‘“keeping in mind that the trial court was required to make its order based on the higher standard of clear and convincing evidence.”’ [Citation.] ‘[A]ppellate review of the sufficiency of t

2024The focus of the statute is on averting harm to the child.” [Citation.] The court may consider a parent’s past conduct as well as present circumstances.’” (In re John M. (2012) 212 Cal.App.4th 1117, 1126 , italics added.) We review a juvenile court’s dispositional order removing a child from parental custody for substantial evidence, “‘bearing in mind the heightened burden of proof.’” (In re Hailey T. (2012) 212 Cal.App.4th 139, 146 .) In Conservatorship of O.B. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 989 , the California Supreme has stated that “appellate review of the sufficiency of the evidence in support of a fi

2024(In re Ashly F. (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 803, 809 .) But “[s]ubstantial evidence does not mean ‘any evidence,’ however,” and the reviewing court must “ultimately consider whether a reasonable trier of fact would make the challenged ruling in light of the entire record.” (In re Isabella F. (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 128, 138 .) “Substantial evidence indicates more than a smidgeon or trace; it must be meaningful and significant and cannot be merely speculative.” (In re Ma.V. (2021) 64 Cal.App.5th 11 , 22; County of Santa Cruz v. City of Watsonville (1985) 177 Cal.App.3d 831, 845 .) “[A]ppellate review

2024The focus of the statute is on averting harm to the child.” [Citation.] The court may consider a parent’s past conduct as well as present circumstances.’” (In re John M. (2012) 212 Cal.App.4th 1117, 1126 , italics added.) We review a juvenile court’s dispositional order removing a child from parental custody for substantial evidence, “‘bearing in mind the heightened burden of proof.’” (In re Hailey T. (2012) 212 Cal.App.4th 139, 146 .) In Conservatorship of O.B. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 989 , the California Supreme has stated that “appellate review of the sufficiency of the evidence in support of a fi

2024(In re Ashly F. (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 803, 809 .) But “[s]ubstantial evidence does not mean ‘any evidence,’ however,” and the reviewing court must “ultimately consider whether a reasonable trier of fact would make the challenged ruling in light of the entire record.” (In re Isabella F. (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 128, 138 .) “Substantial evidence indicates more than a smidgeon or trace; it must be meaningful and significant and cannot be merely speculative.” (In re Ma.V. (2021) 64 Cal.App.5th 11 , 22; County of Santa Cruz v. City of Watsonville (1985) 177 Cal.App.3d 831, 845 .) “[A]ppellate review

2023(In re Nada R. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 1166, 1179 .) We review a dispositional order removing a child from a parent for substantial evidence, “ ‘keeping in mind that the trial court was required to make its order based on the higher standard of clear and convincing evidence.’ ” (In re I.R. (2021) 61 Cal.App.5th 510 , 520.) “[A]ppellate review of the sufficiency of the evidence in support of a finding requiring clear and convincing proof must account for the level of confidence this standard demands.” (Conservatorship of O.B. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 989 , 995.) In applying this standard of review, “the

2023(In re Kristin H. (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1635, 1654 .) Because the juvenile court must make the relevant findings by clear and convincing evidence, our review “must account for the level of confidence this standard demands.” (Conservatorship of O.B. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 989 , 995.) Accordingly, the question before us is “whether the record as a whole contains substantial evidence from which a reasonable fact finder could have found it highly probable that the fact was true.

2021(In re Daniela G. (2018) 23 Cal.App.5th 1083, 1090 .) Where, as here, the burden of proof below was clear and convincing evidence, a higher standard governs our review as well. “ ‘[A]ppellate review of the sufficiency of the evidence in support of a finding requiring clear and convincing proof must account for the level of confidence this standard demands. . . . [W]hen reviewing a finding that a fact has been proved by clear and convincing evidence, the question before the appellate court is whether the record as a whole contains substantial evidence from which a reasonable fact finder could h

1975But “his misconduct is not excused in any way merely because the client ultimately suffered no loss. . . .” (Bradpiece v. State Bar (1974) supra, 10 Cal.3d 742, 748 .) The effect of petitioner’s conduct on the Tarrs’ eventual financial position was litigated in the civil action brought by the latter; the purpose of the present proceeding, by contrast, is “to inquire into the fitness of the *499 attorney to continue in that capacity for the protection of the public, the courts, and the legal profession.” (Ibid.) Gross mismanagement of clients’ trust funds, such as here shown by the record, seri