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.
12 California opinions name it 1 courts 2013–2026 11 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 |
|---|---|---|
Los Angeles County Department of Children & Family Services v. Richard H.green1 sentence2023Code, § 604; see In re Quentin H. (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 608 , 614–615 (Quentin H.).) “Once rebutted, the presumed fact may still be considered by the fact finder, as well as any reasonable inferences to be derived therefrom [citation], but without regard to the benefit of the presumption.” (Quentin H., at pp. 614–615.) A parent may rebut a presumption under section 355.1 by relying on information in the Department’s own reports. | 1 | 1 |
In Re Marriage of Schulzegreen2 sentences2022It ordered support in the precise amount calculated by the DissoMaster software (see Schulze, supra, 60 Cal.App.4th at p. 523, fn. 2 ); Father does not contend the software computed his support obligation incorrectly. 2022It ordered support in the precise amount calculated by the DissoMaster software (see Schulze, supra, 60 Cal.App.4th at p. 523, fn. 2 ); Father does not contend the software computed his support obligation incorrectly. | 1 | 1 |
Orange County Social Services Agency v. Doris F.green1 sentence2013(Ibid.) In determining whether reunification is in the child's best interests, the juvenile court should consider a number of factors, including: "(1) the seriousness of the problem 12 which led to the dependency, and the reason for any continuation of that problem; (2) the strength of relative bonds between the dependent children to both parent and caretakers; and (3) the degree to which the problem may be easily removed or ameliorated, and the degree to which it actually has been." (Kimberly F. (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 519, 532 (Kimberly F.).) This list is not meant to be exhaustive. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In Re Marilyn H
green
2 sentences2026(In re Marilyn H., supra, 5 Cal.4th at p. 309 ; In re Stephanie M., at p. 317.) “[B]est interests is a complex idea” that requires consideration of a variety of factors. 2024(In re Marilyn H., supra, 5 Cal.4th at p. 309 ; In re Stephanie M., supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 317 .) “[B]est interests is a complex idea” that requires consideration of a variety of factors. | 8 | 2022–2026 |
In Re Jacob P.
green
2 sentences2023(Ibid.; In re Malick T., supra, 73 Cal.App.5th at p. 1123; In re Jacob P. (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 819, 828 .) Nonetheless, a parent may rebut the presumption that continued care is in the best interest of the child after termination of reunification services by showing that circumstances have changed and would warrant further reunification services. 2022(Ibid.; In re Vincent M. (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 943, 960 ; In re Jacob P. (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 819, 828 .) Nonetheless, a parent may rebut the presumption that continued care is in the best interest of the child after termination of reunification services by showing that circumstances have changed and would warrant further reunification services. | 2 | 2022–2023 |
In Re Stephanie M.
green
1 sentence2024(In re Marilyn H., supra, 5 Cal.4th at p. 309 ; In re Stephanie M., supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 317 .) “[B]est interests is a complex idea” that requires consideration of a variety of factors. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Orange County Social Services Agency v. M.C.
green
1 sentence2024(Stephanie M., at p. 317, Malick T. at p. 1123.) “[A]fter reunification services have terminated, a parent’s petition for either an order returning custody or reopening reunification efforts must establish how such a change will advance the child’s need for permanency and stability.” (In re J.C. (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 503, 527 .) We review the court’s decision to grant or deny a section 388 petition based on its best interest finding for abuse of discretion and may disturb the exercise of that discretion only in the rare case when the court has made an arbitrary or irrational determination. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
In Re Esmeralda B.
green
1 sentence2023(See Quentin H., at p. 616; In re Esmeralda B. (1992) 11 Cal.App.4th 1036, 1041 .) Here, father concedes there is substantial evidence that R.C. suffered a fractured femur. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
In Re Vincent M.
green
1 sentence2022(Ibid.; In re Vincent M. (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 943, 960 ; In re Jacob P. (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 819, 828 .) Nonetheless, a parent may rebut the presumption that continued care is in the best interest of the child after termination of reunification services by showing that circumstances have changed and would warrant further reunification services. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.