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.
15 California opinions name it 3 courts 1978–2024 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
In Re Cole C.green2 sentences2024Sufficient Evidence Supports the Juvenile Court’s Finding of Substantial Danger to the Children We find the evidence presented at the contested dispositional hearing, including the Agency’s June 28, July 19, August 15, and August 23, 2023 reports and attachments, constitutes substantial evidence supporting the juvenile court’s finding that “[t]here is or would be a substantial danger to the physical health, safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the minor if the minor were returned home[.]” (§ 361, subd. (c)(1).) In making this determination, “the court may consider the par 2024The focus of section 361, subdivision (c), is to avert harm to children (Cole C., supra, 174 Cal.App.4th at p. 917 ), and the juvenile court recognized Mother was still early in the domestic violence recovery process and her sobriety had not been “sustained over a meaningful period.” Mother had been voluntarily participating in services and maintaining a safety plan for approximately two months and had one negative drug test result. | 1 | 1 |
R.T. v. Superior Courtgreen1 sentence2024(R.T. v. Superior Court (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 908, 913, fn. 3 .) Here, the record shows that the only argument advanced by Mother at the time of the contested dispositional hearing was that the bypass provision of section 361.5, subdivision (b)(10) did not apply. | 1 | 1 |
Napa County Department of Health & Human Services v. Shanon K.green1 sentence2022“A parent’s denial of domestic violence increases the risk of it recurring.” (In re V.L. (2020) 54 Cal.App.5th 147 , 156; In re Gabriel K. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 188, 197 [“One cannot correct a problem one fails to acknowledge”].) Mother asserts that by the contested dispositional hearing, she had been separated from A.H. “for nearly a full year” and had no plans to reconcile. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Jose T.green1 sentence2016The probation department recommended a DJF commitment, summarizing the minor’s contacts with the law and his behavior while in custody as follows: Justice [DJJ], which in turn is part of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. [Citations.] Statutes that formerly referred to CYA . . . now refer to DJF.” (In re Jose T. (2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 1142, 1145, fn. 1 .) 2 Further undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code. 2 In August 2010, the minor and two other juveniles sexually battered two female students in a school bathroom, before trying to prevent the | 1 | 1 |
In Re Catherine H.green2 sentences2003The appellate court agreed, finding that "a noncustodial parent seeking custody after his or her child has been removed from the custody of a predependency guardian has standing to request a contested dispositional hearing and, when the hearing is held, to appear, to be heard, and to present evidence." (Catherine H., at p. 1292, 126 Cal.Rptr.2d 342.) The court, explicitly stated that it "need not decide what the outcome would be if the juvenile court had established the guardianship in the dependency proceeding." (Id. at p. 1293, 126 Cal.Rptr.2d 342 .) The court in Catherine H. thus recognized 2003The appellate court agreed, finding that "a noncustodial parent seeking custody after his or her child has been removed from the custody of a predependency guardian has standing to request a contested dispositional hearing and, when the hearing is held, to appear, to be heard, and to present evidence." (Catherine H., at p. 1292, 126 Cal.Rptr.2d 342.) The court, explicitly stated that it "need not decide what the outcome would be if the juvenile court had established the guardianship in the dependency proceeding." (Id. at p. 1293, 126 Cal.Rptr.2d 342 .) The court in Catherine H. thus recognized | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Gonzalez v. Munoz
green
2 sentences2019Conclusion "Court procedures, however well-intentioned, should not be imposed at the expense of the parties' basic rights to have their matters fairly adjudicated ...." ( Gonzalez v. Munoz (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 413 , 423, 67 Cal.Rptr.3d 317 .) Here, the court procedure-promulgated without compliance with the requirements for adopting local rules, applied without notice to Mother of any consequences for the rule's violation, and imposed to effectively deny Mother a contested dispositional hearing-compromised Mother's right to have the dependency matter fairly adjudicated. 2019Conclusion "Court procedures, however well-intentioned, should not be imposed at the expense of the parties' basic rights to have their matters fairly adjudicated ...." ( Gonzalez v. Munoz (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 413 , 423, 67 Cal.Rptr.3d 317 .) Here, the court procedure-promulgated without compliance with the requirements for adopting local rules, applied without notice to Mother of any consequences for the rule's violation, and imposed to effectively deny Mother a contested dispositional hearing-compromised Mother's right to have the dependency matter fairly adjudicated. | 2 | 2019–2019 |
Lopez v. Superior Court
green
2 sentences2010At the time of a contested dispositional hearing in December 2008, the court found that violating the gang injunction was a gang-related offense per se, relying on Lopez v. Superior Court (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 824 [ 72 Cal.Rptr.3d 929 ]. 2010At the time of a contested dispositional hearing in December 2008, the court found that violating the gang injunction was a gang-related offense per se, relying on Lopez v. Superior Court (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 824 [ 72 Cal.Rptr.3d 929 ]. | 2 | 2010–2010 |
Miranda v. Arizona
green
1 sentence2016At the conclusion of a contested dispositional hearing, the juvenile court adjudged Elijah a ward of the court, vested his custody with the probation department, and ordered 1 Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436 . 2 Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code. 3 Elijah’s father was serving a state prison sentence. 2 his commitment to the Bar-O-Boys Ranch in Del Norte County for a period not to exceed two years, 10 months, and 18 days. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
People v. Shannon B.
green
1 sentence2015Minors have the right to present evidence at the dispositional hearing. (§ 706; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.785(b); In re Shannon B. (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 1235, 1246-1247 .) And contrary to the People’s contention otherwise, we cannot say that the failure of the juvenile court to provide the minor with an opportunity to present that evidence was not prejudicial. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
People v. Deon W.
green
1 sentence2015However, the juvenile court is required to provide the minor with a contested dispositional hearing after terminating nonwardship probation and before declaring her a ward of the court (Deon W., supra, 64 Cal.App.4th at p. 147 ), and the minor repeatedly requested one to provide evidence that wardship was not in her best interest. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
In Re Tahl
green
1 sentence2014(Id. at p. 405.) On appeal, mother contended that "she did not understand that her waiver of a contested dispositional hearing would result in the denial of reunification services." (Id. at p. 402.) 10 Citing Monique T., supra, 2 Cal.App.4th 1372 , the appellate court in Patricia T. stated that "because [former] rule 1449 requires warnings analogous to those required under Boykin v. Alabama (1969) 395 U.S. 238 [ 89 S.Ct. 1709 , 23 L.Ed.2d 274 ] and In re Tahl (1969) 1 Cal.3d 122 , when a defendant enters a guilty plea in criminal proceedings, we seek guidance from the standard of review applic | 1 | 2014–2014 |
In Re Monique T.
green
1 sentence2014(Id. at p. 405.) On appeal, mother contended that "she did not understand that her waiver of a contested dispositional hearing would result in the denial of reunification services." (Id. at p. 402.) 10 Citing Monique T., supra, 2 Cal.App.4th 1372 , the appellate court in Patricia T. stated that "because [former] rule 1449 requires warnings analogous to those required under Boykin v. Alabama (1969) 395 U.S. 238 [ 89 S.Ct. 1709 , 23 L.Ed.2d 274 ] and In re Tahl (1969) 1 Cal.3d 122 , when a defendant enters a guilty plea in criminal proceedings, we seek guidance from the standard of review applic | 1 | 2014–2014 |
In Re Patricia
green
1 sentence2014(Id. at p. 407.) In re Patricia T., supra, 91 Cal.App.4th 400 is not applicable because father here did not plead no contest and a contested hearing was conducted. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Boykin v. Alabama
green
2 sentences2014(Id. at p. 405.) On appeal, mother contended that "she did not understand that her waiver of a contested dispositional hearing would result in the denial of reunification services." (Id. at p. 402.) 10 Citing Monique T., supra, 2 Cal.App.4th 1372 , the appellate court in Patricia T. stated that "because [former] rule 1449 requires warnings analogous to those required under Boykin v. Alabama (1969) 395 U.S. 238 [ 89 S.Ct. 1709 , 23 L.Ed.2d 274 ] and In re Tahl (1969) 1 Cal.3d 122 , when a defendant enters a guilty plea in criminal proceedings, we seek guidance from the standard of review applic 2014(Id. at p. 405.) On appeal, mother contended that "she did not understand that her waiver of a contested dispositional hearing would result in the denial of reunification services." (Id. at p. 402.) 10 Citing Monique T., supra, 2 Cal.App.4th 1372 , the appellate court in Patricia T. stated that "because [former] rule 1449 requires warnings analogous to those required under Boykin v. Alabama (1969) 395 U.S. 238 [ 89 S.Ct. 1709 , 23 L.Ed.2d 274 ] and In re Tahl (1969) 1 Cal.3d 122 , when a defendant enters a guilty plea in criminal proceedings, we seek guidance from the standard of review applic | 1 | 2014–2014 |
People v. Joshua S.
green
2 sentences2014DISCUSSION Minor M.W. contends, and the Attorney General concedes, under the reasoning of In re Joshua S., supra, 192 Cal.App.4th 670 , it was error for the juvenile court to deem the minor ineligible for DEJ because he admitted one but not all of the charges included in the original petition. 2014DISCUSSION Minor M.W. contends, and the Attorney General concedes, under the reasoning of In re Joshua S., supra, 192 Cal.App.4th 670 , it was error for the juvenile court to deem the minor ineligible for DEJ because he admitted one but not all of the charges included in the original petition. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
People v. Howard
green
1 sentence2014(Id. at p. 405.) On appeal, mother contended that "she did not understand that her waiver of a contested dispositional hearing would result in the denial of reunification services." (Id. at p. 402.) 10 Citing Monique T., supra, 2 Cal.App.4th 1372 , the appellate court in Patricia T. stated that "because [former] rule 1449 requires warnings analogous to those required under Boykin v. Alabama (1969) 395 U.S. 238 [ 89 S.Ct. 1709 , 23 L.Ed.2d 274 ] and In re Tahl (1969) 1 Cal.3d 122 , when a defendant enters a guilty plea in criminal proceedings, we seek guidance from the standard of review applic | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Kirkpatrick v. Edgar M.
green
2 sentences1978Article VI, section 22 of our state Constitution restricts referees to the exercise of "subordinate judicial duties." ( In re Edgar M. (1975) 14 Cal.3d 727 [ 122 Cal. Rptr. 574 , 537 P.2d 406 ].) There is no question that the conduct of a contested dispositional hearing and the removal of a minor from his home are not subordinate judicial duties. ( Id., at p. 735.) Therefore, to comply with the state Constitution, a referee's removal order must be reviewed and adopted in a meaningful way by a juvenile court judge. 1978Article VI, section 22 of our state Constitution restricts referees to the exercise of "subordinate judicial duties." ( In re Edgar M. (1975) 14 Cal.3d 727 [ 122 Cal. Rptr. 574 , 537 P.2d 406 ].) There is no question that the conduct of a contested dispositional hearing and the removal of a minor from his home are not subordinate judicial duties. ( Id., at p. 735.) Therefore, to comply with the state Constitution, a referee's removal order must be reviewed and adopted in a meaningful way by a juvenile court judge. | 1 | 1978–1978 |
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.