finding made standard in California

2025The focus of the statute is on averting harm to the child.” (Ibid.) “‘We review an order sustaining a section 387 petition for substantial evidence.’” (In re D.D., supra, 32 Cal.App.5th at p. 990 .) We must “account for the clear and convincing standard of proof when addressing a claim that the evidence does not support a finding made under this standard,” such as father’s challenge here to the removal order.

2024(Technology Credit Union v. Rafat (2022) 82 Cal.App.5th 314 , 323 [applying the clear and convincing standard articulated in O.B. to a workplace 22 violence restraining order under § 527.8]; see Fam.

2022(Ibid.; Conroy v. Spitzer (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 1446 , 1451-1452; cf. Conservatorship of O.B. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 989 , 1011 [“an appellate court must account for the clear and convincing standard of proof when addressing a claim that the evidence does not support a finding made under this standard”].) Section 1138 is one such a law.

2022(In re Jasmon O. (1994) 8 Cal.4th 398, 415-416 .) “Substantial evidence is evidence that is ‘of ponderable legal significance,’ ‘reasonable in nature, credible, and of solid value,’ and ‘ “substantial” proof of the essentials which the law requires in a particular case.’ ” (Conservatorship of O.B. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 989 , 1006 (O.B.).) We “must account for the clear and convincing standard of proof when addressing a claim that the evidence does not support a finding made under this standard,” such as the challenge here to the juvenile court’s decision to terminate reunification services.

2021(State Dept. of State Hospitals v. J.W., supra, 31 Cal.App.5th at p. 346 .) “To ensure the right to refuse medication is protected, a judicial determination of incapacity based on clear and convincing evidence is required before involuntary medication is permitted.” (Ibid.) “[A]n appellate court must account for the clear and convincing standard of proof when addressing a claim that the evidence does not support a finding made under this standard.

2021(Guardianship of Vaughan, supra, at p. 1067 .) “ ‘We view the evidence in a light most favorable to the trial court’s decision, resolving all conflicts in the evidence and drawing all reasonable inferences in support of that court’s findings. [Citation.] In short, we review the evidence but do not weigh it; we defer to the trial court’s findings to the extent they are supported by substantial evidence. [Citations.]’ ” (Ibid.) To the extent the clear and convincing standard applied in the trial court, when we address a claim raised on appeal that the evidence does not support a finding made und

2021(In re Gregory A. (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 1554, 1561 .) On appeal, we “must account for the clear and convincing standard of proof when addressing a claim that the evidence does not support a finding made under this standard.

2021(In re Chantal S. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 196, 210 .) On appeal, we “must account for the clear and convincing standard of 6 proof when addressing a claim that the evidence does not support a finding made under this standard.

2020(Id. at p. 1005.) In doing so, we are nonetheless limited by the well-known standard: “ ‘If there is substantial evidence to support the ruling, it will not be disturbed on appeal even if the record can also support a different ruling.’ ” (M.Z., supra, 5 Cal.App.5th at p. 64 , italics added.) As particularly applicable given Appellant’s presentation on appeal, “ ‘[w]e do not review the evidence to see if there is substantial evidence to support the losing party’s version of events, but only to see if substantial evidence exists to support the [ruling] in favor of the prevailing party.’ ” (In r

2020(M.Z., supra, 5 Cal.App.5th at p. 64 .) Because Appellant challenges a family court finding that must be based on clear and convincing evidence, we “must account for the clear and convincing standard of proof when addressing a claim that the evidence does not support a finding made under this standard.” (O.B., supra, 9 Cal.5th at p. 1011.) In conducting this review under the new standard established by our Supreme Court in O.B., we “must view the record in the light most favorable to [Respondent] and give appropriate deference to how the trier of fact may 10 have evaluated the credibility of w

2014(In re K.B., supra, 173 Cal.App.4th at p. 1283 , citing In re Michael G., supra, 63 Cal.App.4th at pp. 715–716.) Having cited In re Michael G. in connection with the “active efforts” finding made in connection with the disposition hearing, the court did not explain why it applied a different standard of review to the finding made at the hearing to terminate parental rights.