obvious exception in California

2025(See, e.g., Tahoe National Bank v. Phillips (1971) 4 Cal.3d 11, 23, fn. 17 [“Generally, points not urged in the trial court cannot be raised on appeal. [Citation.] The contention that a judgment is not supported by substantial evidence, however, is an obvious exception to the rule.”]; In re P.C. (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 279, 288 [same].) But, as discussed, Theodore’s argument is not that substantial evidence did not support a judgment for the Madisons, it is that the trial court should have 57 given him an offset for his share of the Casa W sales proceeds.

2025“Generally, points not urged in the trial court cannot be raised on appeal. [Citation.] The contention that a judgment is not supported by substantial evidence, however, is an obvious exception.” (Tahoe National Bank v. Phillips (1971) 4 Cal.3d 11, 23, fn. 17 (Tahoe National Bank); accord, First National Bank v. Maryland Casualty Co. (1912) 162 Cal. 61, 72-73 (Maryland Casualty Co.) [challenge to sufficiency of the evidence to support finding on which insurance liability was predicated is not forfeited by lack of objection]; Mundy v. Lenc (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 1401, 1407 (Mundy) [the sufficie

2025“Generally, points not urged in the trial court cannot be raised on appeal. [Citation.] The contention that a judgment is not supported by substantial evidence, however, is an obvious exception.” (Tahoe National Bank v. Phillips (1971) 4 Cal.3d 11, 23, fn. 17 (Tahoe National Bank); accord, First National Bank v. Maryland Casualty Co. (1912) 162 Cal. 61, 72-73 (Maryland Casualty Co.) [challenge to sufficiency of the evidence to support finding on which insurance liability was predicated is not forfeited by lack of objection]; Mundy v. Lenc (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 1401, 1407 (Mundy) [the sufficie

2025(See, e.g., In re J.N. (2021) 62 Cal.App.5th 767 , 777, fn. 5 [“a claim that the evidence is insufficient to support a disposition order in a dependency matter generally is not forfeited even if not raised below”]; In re Brian P. (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 616, 623 [“ ‘Generally, points not urged in the trial court cannot be raised on appeal. [Citation.] The contention that a judgment is not supported by substantial evidence, however, is an obvious exception to the rule’ ”].) Moreover, even if Mother’s appeal were moot, appellate courts have “inherent discretion to decide certain challenges to juve

2020Father admitted to domestic violence with mother, he engaged in physical fights with mother’s boyfriend in front of the minors, and he was aware of domestic violence between mother and her boyfriend yet continued to bring the minors to stay with mother on weekends. 2 A parent in a contested dependency proceeding “is not required to object to the agency’s failure to carry its burden of proof.” (In re Javier G. (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 453, 464 .) Rather, a “ ‘ “contention that a judgment is not supported by substantial evidence . . . is an obvious exception to the [forfeiture] rule.” ’ ” (In re G

2014As a general rule, “the contention that a judgment [or order] is not supported by substantial evidence . . . is an obvious exception to the rule” that “points not urged in the trial court cannot be raised on appeal.” (Tahoe National Bank v. Phillips (1971) 4 Cal.3d 11, 23, fn. 17 ; see also In re R.V. (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 837, 848 .) Therefore, a parent’s mere failure to object to removal of his or her child at the dispositional hearing does not bar that parent from challenging the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the removal order on appeal.

2011As the Burgess court explained, “An obvious exception [to the general premise that a parent who has been the primary caretaker for minor children is no less capable of maintaining the responsibilities of parents by virtue of a reasonable decision to change location] is a custodial parent’s decision to relocate simply to frustrate the noncustodial parent’s contact with the minor children. ‘Conduct by a custodial parent designed to frustrate visitation and communication may be grounds for changing custody.’ [Citations.] Even if the custodial parent is otherwise ‘fit,’ such bad faith conduct may

2004Even if the custodial parent is otherwise `fit,' such bad faith conduct may be relevant to a determination of what permanent custody arrangement is in the minor children's best interest. [Citations.]" ( Burgess, supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 36, fn. 6 , 51 Cal.Rptr.2d 444 , 913 P.2d 473 .) We referenced these discussions of good faith and bad faith in our formulation of the rule: "In a `move-away' case, a change of custody is not justified simply because the custodial parent has chosen, for any sound good faith reason, to reside in a different location, but only if, as a result of relocation with th

2020Father admitted to domestic violence with mother, he engaged in physical fights with mother’s boyfriend in front of the minors, and he was aware of domestic violence between mother and her boyfriend yet continued to bring the minors to stay with mother on weekends. 2 A parent in a contested dependency proceeding “is not required to object to the agency’s failure to carry its burden of proof.” (In re Javier G. (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 453, 464 .) Rather, a “ ‘ “contention that a judgment is not supported by substantial evidence . . . is an obvious exception to the [forfeiture] rule.” ’ ” (In re G

2017We also reject the Department’s contention that Father forfeited this challenge by failing to object to the finding below. “ ‘ “Generally, points not urged in the trial court cannot be raised on appeal. [Citation.] The contention that a judgment is not supported by substantial evidence, however, is an obvious exception to the rule.” ’ ” (In re Gregory A. (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 1554, 1560 [substantial evidence challenge to adoptability finding not forfeited by failure to object below].)11 We have already found the Department failed to demonstrate reasonable services were provided to Father duri

2014(See In re Chantal S. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 196, 210 [agency has burden of presenting evidence to support allegations and requested orders]; [citation].) ‘Generally, points not urged in the trial court cannot be raised on appeal. [Citation.] The contention that a judgment is not supported by substantial evidence, however, is an obvious exception to the rule.’ [Citations.] Thus, while a parent may waive the objection that an adoption assessment does not comply with the requirements provided in section 366.21, subdivision (i), a claim that there was insufficient evidence of the child’s adoptability

2002(See In re Chantal S. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 196, 210 , 51 Cal.Rptr.2d 866 , 913 P.2d 1075 [agency has burden of presenting evidence to support allegations and requested orders]; Cynthia D. v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 242, 254 , 19 Cal. Rptr.2d 698 , 851 P.2d 1307 .) "Generally, points not urged in the trial court cannot be raised on appeal. [Citation.] The contention that a judgment is not supported by substantial evidence, however, is an obvious exception to the rule." ( Tahoe National Bank v. Phillips (1971) 4 Cal.3d 11, 23, fn. 17 , 92 Cal.Rptr. 704 , 480 P.2d 320 ; see also In re Joy M.

1981This obvious principle is one of the cornerstones of our system of lower and higher tribunals.” (Italics added.) (See also In re Marriage of Leonard (1981) 122 Cal. App.3d 443 [ 175 Cal.Rptr. 903 ]; Palm v. Superior Court (1979) 97 Cal.App.3d 456 [ 158 Cal.Rptr. 786 ].) The first California case to examine this concept in the context of a trial court’s duties vis-á-vis the appeal court’s function, Abelleira v. District Court of Appeal, supra, 17 Cal.2d at page 302 , held: When the trial court has merely taken the question of whether it has jurisdiction under consideration, there is no reason f

1981This obvious principle is one of the cornerstones of our system of lower and higher tribunals." (Italics added.) (See also In re Marriage of Leonard (1981) 122 Cal. App.3d 443 [ 175 Cal. Rptr. 903 ]; Palm v. Superior Court (1979) 97 Cal. App.3d 456 [ 158 Cal. Rptr. 786 ].) The first California case to examine this concept in the context of a trial court's duties vis-a-vis the appeal court's function, Abelleira v. District Court of Appeal, supra, 17 Cal.2d at page 302 , held: When the trial court has merely taken the question of whether it has jurisdiction under consideration, there is no reaso

2024(People v. Butler (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1119, 1126 (Butler).) “Generally, points not urged in the trial court cannot be raised on appeal. [Citation.] The contention that a judgment is not supported by substantial evidence, however, is an obvious exception.” (Tahoe National Bank v. Phillips (1971) 4 Cal.3d 11, 23, fn. 17 .) “Parties may generally challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support a judgment for the first time on appeal because they ‘necessarily objected’ to the sufficiency of the evidence by ‘contesting [it] at trial.’” (People v. McCullough (2013) 56 Cal.4th 589, 596 ; see Peopl

2014(In re M.B. (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 1496 , 1506 [“while a parent may waive an objection to specific evidence, a claim that there is insufficient evidence to support the judgment is not waived by a failure to object”]; In re Richard K., at p. 589; see generally People v. Butler (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1119, 1126 [“‘Generally, points not urged in the trial court cannot be raised on appeal. [Citation.] The contention that a judgment is not supported by substantial evidence, however, is an obvious exception.’”].) 8 Minute orders for hearings on October 29, 2013, December 10, 2013 and January 14, 2014 all

2009“The resolution of this issue depends solely on statutory interpretation and is subject to our independent review.” (In re Liam L. (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 739, 743 [ 101 Cal.Rptr.2d 13 ].) Kevin contends the court properly weighed his claim against Brent’s because “the goal of the paternity statutes is ‘the protection of the child’s well being.’ ” He argues our “Supreme Court has held that functioning interpersonal parent-child relationships trump biological parentage,” relying on In re Jesusa V., supra, 32 Cal.4th 588 .

2009“The resolution of this issue depends solely on statutory interpretation and is subject to our independent review.” (In re Liam L. (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 739, 743 [ 101 Cal.Rptr.2d 13 ].) Kevin contends the court properly weighed his claim against Brent’s because “the goal of the paternity statutes is ‘the protection of the child’s well being.’ ” He argues our “Supreme Court has held that functioning interpersonal parent-child relationships trump biological parentage,” relying on In re Jesusa V., supra, 32 Cal.4th 588 .

2002In this case, however, there was nothing to overcome the obvious presumption that the purse [belonged to the wife], not [the defendant].” (People v. Veronica, supra, 107 Cal.App.3d at p. 909 ; People v. Alders (1978) 87 Cal.App.3d 313, 317-318 [ 151 Cal.Rptr. 77 ] [same].) The People rely on People v. Boyd (1990) 224 Cal.App.3d 736 [ 274 Cal.Rptr. 100 ], which also concerned a search of the residence—a one-room trailer—of a parolee who was subject to a search condition.

2002In this case, however, there was nothing to overcome the obvious presumption that the purse [belonged to the wife], not [the defendant].” (People v. Veronica, supra, 107 Cal.App.3d at p. 909 ; People v. Alders (1978) 87 Cal.App.3d 313, 317-318 [ 151 Cal.Rptr. 77 ] [same].) The People rely on People v. Boyd (1990) 224 Cal.App.3d 736 [ 274 Cal.Rptr. 100 ], which also concerned a search of the residence—a one-room trailer—of a parolee who was subject to a search condition.

2003Just as a defendant could appeal an HIV testing order, without prior objection, on the ground he had not been convicted of an enumerated offense (see, e.g., People v. Green (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 1076, 1090 , 58 Cal.Rptr.2d 259 ; People v. Jillie (1992) 8 Cal.App.4th 960, 963 , 11 Cal.Rptr.2d 107 ), he should be able to do so on the ground the record does not establish the other prerequisite, probable cause.

2003Just as a defendant could appeal an HIV testing order, without prior objection, on the ground he had not been convicted of an enumerated offense (see, e.g., People v. Green (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 1076, 1090 , 58 Cal.Rptr.2d 259 ; People v. Jillie (1992) 8 Cal.App.4th 960, 963 , 11 Cal.Rptr.2d 107 ), he should be able to do so on the ground the record does not establish the other prerequisite, probable cause.

2003Just as a defendant could appeal an HIV testing order, without prior objection, on the ground he had not been convicted of an enumerated offense (see, e.g., People v. Green (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 1076, 1090 , 58 Cal.Rptr.2d 259 ; People v. Jillie (1992) 8 Cal.App.4th 960, 963 , 11 Cal.Rptr.2d 107 ), he should be able to do so on the ground the record does not establish the other prerequisite, probable cause.

2003Just as a defendant could appeal an HIV testing order, without prior objection, on the ground he had not been convicted of an enumerated offense (see, e.g., People v. Green (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 1076, 1090 , 58 Cal.Rptr.2d 259 ; People v. Jillie (1992) 8 Cal.App.4th 960, 963 , 11 Cal.Rptr.2d 107 ), he should be able to do so on the ground the record does not establish the other prerequisite, probable cause.

2001The court of appeals held “that—as an obvious violation of a juror’s oath and duty—a refusal to apply the law as set forth by the court constitutes grounds for dismissal under Rule 23(b).” (U.S. v. Thomas, supra, 116 F.3d at p. 608.) Restating “some basic principles regarding the character of our jury system,” the court of appeals concluded: “Nullification is, by definition, a violation of a juror’s oath to apply the law as instructed by the court. . . .

2001The court of appeals held—"that as an obvious violation of a juror's oath and duty—a refusal to apply the law as set forth by the court constitutes grounds for dismissal under Rule 23(b)." ( United States v. Thomas, supra, 116 F.3d at p. 608 .) Restating "some basic principles regarding the character of our jury system," the court of appeals concluded: "Nullification is, by definition, a violation of a juror's oath to apply the law as instructed by the court....

2016(People v. Veronica (1980) 107 Cal.App.3d 906, 909 [ 166 Cal.Rptr. 109 ] (Veronica) [‘“In this case . . . there was simply nothing to overcome the obvious presumption that the purse” in a parolee’s residence belonged to his wife, not to him].) Defendant also invokes People v. Baker (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 1152 [ 79 Cal.Rptr.3d 858 ] (Baker).

2016(People v. Veronica (1980) 107 Cal.App.3d 906, 909 [ 166 Cal.Rptr. 109 ] (Veronica) [‘“In this case . . . there was simply nothing to overcome the obvious presumption that the purse” in a parolee’s residence belonged to his wife, not to him].) Defendant also invokes People v. Baker (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 1152 [ 79 Cal.Rptr.3d 858 ] (Baker).

2005(Ibid.) “ ‘Generally, points not urged in the trial court cannot be raised on appeal. [Citation.] The contention that a judgment is not supported by substantial evidence, however, is an obvious exception to the rule.’ [Citations.]” (Ibid.) The court in In re Erik P. (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 395, 399 [ 127 Cal.Rptr.2d 922 ], used the same analysis to conclude the father had not waived the right to argue lack of substantial evidence of adoptability, despite his failure to object to the juvenile court’s finding.

2005(Ibid.) “ ‘Generally, points not urged in the trial court cannot be raised on appeal. [Citation.] The contention that a judgment is not supported by substantial evidence, however, is an obvious exception to the rule.’ [Citations.]” (Ibid.) The court in In re Erik P. (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 395, 399 [ 127 Cal.Rptr.2d 922 ], used the same analysis to conclude the father had not waived the right to argue lack of substantial evidence of adoptability, despite his failure to object to the juvenile court’s finding.

2014(In re M.B. (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 1496 , 1506 [“while a parent may waive an objection to specific evidence, a claim that there is insufficient evidence to support the judgment is not waived by a failure to object”]; In re Richard K., at p. 589; see generally People v. Butler (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1119, 1126 [“‘Generally, points not urged in the trial court cannot be raised on appeal. [Citation.] The contention that a judgment is not supported by substantial evidence, however, is an obvious exception.’”].) 8 Minute orders for hearings on October 29, 2013, December 10, 2013 and January 14, 2014 all

2013We disagree. “„Generally, points not urged in the trial court cannot be raised on appeal. [Citation.] The contention that a judgment is not supported by substantial evidence, however, is an obvious exception to the rule.‟” (In re Brian P. (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 22 616, 623 ; see also In re M.B. (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 1496, 1506 [Fourth Dist., Div. Two] [“a claim that there is insufficient evidence to support the judgment is not waived by a failure to object”], fn. omitted.) Indeed, a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to support a court‟s jurisdictional finding is not waived on appeal

2012In this case, however, there was simply nothing to overcome the obvious presumption that the purse was hers, not his.” (Id. at p. 909; cf. People v. Boyd (1990) 224 Cal.App.3d 736, 749-751 [ 274 Cal.Rptr. 100 ] (Boyd) [upholding search of a handbag where “ ‘articulable facts’ ” supported a rational inference that the handbag was owned or controlled by a parolee].) In People v. Montoya (1981) 114 Cal.App.3d 556 [ 170 Cal.Rptr. 624 ], the court suppressed drugs found in a pair of jeans during a parole search of a residence.

2012In this case, however, there was simply nothing to overcome the obvious presumption that the purse was hers, not his.” (Id. at p. 909; cf. People v. Boyd (1990) 224 Cal.App.3d 736, 749-751 [ 274 Cal.Rptr. 100 ] (Boyd) [upholding search of a handbag where “ ‘articulable facts’ ” supported a rational inference that the handbag was owned or controlled by a parolee].) In People v. Montoya (1981) 114 Cal.App.3d 556 [ 170 Cal.Rptr. 624 ], the court suppressed drugs found in a pair of jeans during a parole search of a residence.

2006"The contention that a judgment is not supported by substantial evidence, however, is an obvious exception to the rule." ( Tahoe National Bank v. Phillips (1971) 4 Cal.3d 11, 23, fn. 17 , 92 Cal.Rptr. 704 , 480 P.2d 320 .) In other words, when the merits of a case are contested, a parent is not required to object to the agency's failure to carry its burden of proof. ( In re Brian P. (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 616, 622-623 , 121 Cal.Rptr.2d 326 ; In re Richard K. (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 580, 588-589 , 30 Cal. Rptr.2d 575 .) Here, Maria contested the merits of the Agency's section 387 proceedings.

2006"The contention that a judgment is not supported by substantial evidence, however, is an obvious exception to the rule." ( Tahoe National Bank v. Phillips (1971) 4 Cal.3d 11, 23, fn. 17 , 92 Cal.Rptr. 704 , 480 P.2d 320 .) In other words, when the merits of a case are contested, a parent is not required to object to the agency's failure to carry its burden of proof. ( In re Brian P. (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 616, 622-623 , 121 Cal.Rptr.2d 326 ; In re Richard K. (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 580, 588-589 , 30 Cal. Rptr.2d 575 .) Here, Maria contested the merits of the Agency's section 387 proceedings.

2003(See, Carmel Valley Fire Protection Dist. v. State of California (2001) 25 Cal.4th 287, 299 , 105 Cal.Rptr.2d 636 , 20 P.3d 533 ; Friends of Sierra Madre v. City of Sierra Madre (2001) 25 Cal.4th 165, 196 , 105 Cal.Rptr.2d 214 , 19 P.3d 567 .) DHS's argument that "refraining from taking action is not legislation" and therefore not quasi-legislation, and, as a result, not "regulation," is based *242 on a dictionary definition of "legislation" as "the action of making or giving positive law in written form. . .." (Garner, A Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage (2d ed.1995), DHS's italics) The obviou

2003(See, Carmel Valley Fire Protection Dist. v. State of California (2001) 25 Cal.4th 287, 299 , 105 Cal.Rptr.2d 636 , 20 P.3d 533 ; Friends of Sierra Madre v. City of Sierra Madre (2001) 25 Cal.4th 165, 196 , 105 Cal.Rptr.2d 214 , 19 P.3d 567 .) DHS's argument that "refraining from taking action is not legislation" and therefore not quasi-legislation, and, as a result, not "regulation," is based *242 on a dictionary definition of "legislation" as "the action of making or giving positive law in written form. . .." (Garner, A Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage (2d ed.1995), DHS's italics) The obviou

2003(See, Carmel Valley Fire Protection Dist. v. State of California (2001) 25 Cal.4th 287, 299 , 105 Cal.Rptr.2d 636 , 20 P.3d 533 ; Friends of Sierra Madre v. City of Sierra Madre (2001) 25 Cal.4th 165, 196 , 105 Cal.Rptr.2d 214 , 19 P.3d 567 .) DHS's argument that "refraining from taking action is not legislation" and therefore not quasi-legislation, and, as a result, not "regulation," is based *242 on a dictionary definition of "legislation" as "the action of making or giving positive law in written form. . .." (Garner, A Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage (2d ed.1995), DHS's italics) The obviou

2003(See, Carmel Valley Fire Protection Dist. v. State of California (2001) 25 Cal.4th 287, 299 , 105 Cal.Rptr.2d 636 , 20 P.3d 533 ; Friends of Sierra Madre v. City of Sierra Madre (2001) 25 Cal.4th 165, 196 , 105 Cal.Rptr.2d 214 , 19 P.3d 567 .) DHS's argument that "refraining from taking action is not legislation" and therefore not quasi-legislation, and, as a result, not "regulation," is based *242 on a dictionary definition of "legislation" as "the action of making or giving positive law in written form. . .." (Garner, A Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage (2d ed.1995), DHS's italics) The obviou

2002(See In re Chantal S. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 196, 210 [ 51 Cal.Rptr.2d 866 , 913 P.2d 1075 ] [agency has burden of presenting evidence to support allegations and requested orders]; Cynthia D. v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 242, 254 [ 19 Cal.Rptr.2d 698 , 851 P.2d 1307 ].) “Generally, points not urged in the trial court cannot be raised on appeal. [Citation.] The contention that a judgment is not supported by substantial evidence, however, is an obvious exception to the rule.” (Tahoe National Bank v. Phillips (1971) 4 Cal.3d 11, 23, fn. 17 [ 92 Cal.Rptr. 704 , 480 P.2d 320 ]; see also In re Joy

2002(See In re Chantal S. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 196, 210 [ 51 Cal.Rptr.2d 866 , 913 P.2d 1075 ] [agency has burden of presenting evidence to support allegations and requested orders]; Cynthia D. v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 242, 254 [ 19 Cal.Rptr.2d 698 , 851 P.2d 1307 ].) “Generally, points not urged in the trial court cannot be raised on appeal. [Citation.] The contention that a judgment is not supported by substantial evidence, however, is an obvious exception to the rule.” (Tahoe National Bank v. Phillips (1971) 4 Cal.3d 11, 23, fn. 17 [ 92 Cal.Rptr. 704 , 480 P.2d 320 ]; see also In re Joy

2002(See In re Chantal S. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 196, 210 [ 51 Cal.Rptr.2d 866 , 913 P.2d 1075 ] [agency has burden of presenting evidence to support allegations and requested orders]; Cynthia D. v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 242, 254 [ 19 Cal.Rptr.2d 698 , 851 P.2d 1307 ].) “Generally, points not urged in the trial court cannot be raised on appeal. [Citation.] The contention that a judgment is not supported by substantial evidence, however, is an obvious exception to the rule.” (Tahoe National Bank v. Phillips (1971) 4 Cal.3d 11, 23, fn. 17 [ 92 Cal.Rptr. 704 , 480 P.2d 320 ]; see also In re Joy

2002(See In re Chantal S. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 196, 210 [ 51 Cal.Rptr.2d 866 , 913 P.2d 1075 ] [agency has burden of presenting evidence to support allegations and requested orders]; Cynthia D. v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 242, 254 [ 19 Cal.Rptr.2d 698 , 851 P.2d 1307 ].) “Generally, points not urged in the trial court cannot be raised on appeal. [Citation.] The contention that a judgment is not supported by substantial evidence, however, is an obvious exception to the rule.” (Tahoe National Bank v. Phillips (1971) 4 Cal.3d 11, 23, fn. 17 [ 92 Cal.Rptr. 704 , 480 P.2d 320 ]; see also In re Joy

2002(See In re Chantal S. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 196, 210 , 51 Cal.Rptr.2d 866 , 913 P.2d 1075 [agency has burden of presenting evidence to support allegations and requested orders]; Cynthia D. v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 242, 254 , 19 Cal. Rptr.2d 698 , 851 P.2d 1307 .) "Generally, points not urged in the trial court cannot be raised on appeal. [Citation.] The contention that a judgment is not supported by substantial evidence, however, is an obvious exception to the rule." ( Tahoe National Bank v. Phillips (1971) 4 Cal.3d 11, 23, fn. 17 , 92 Cal.Rptr. 704 , 480 P.2d 320 ; see also In re Joy M.

2002(See In re Chantal S. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 196, 210 , 51 Cal.Rptr.2d 866 , 913 P.2d 1075 [agency has burden of presenting evidence to support allegations and requested orders]; Cynthia D. v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 242, 254 , 19 Cal. Rptr.2d 698 , 851 P.2d 1307 .) "Generally, points not urged in the trial court cannot be raised on appeal. [Citation.] The contention that a judgment is not supported by substantial evidence, however, is an obvious exception to the rule." ( Tahoe National Bank v. Phillips (1971) 4 Cal.3d 11, 23, fn. 17 , 92 Cal.Rptr. 704 , 480 P.2d 320 ; see also In re Joy M.