appellate court reviews challenge in California

2015(See In re K.P. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 614, 621-622 .) Our conclusion, however, is the same under any of these standards.

2015(See In re K.P. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 614, 621-622 .) We need not weigh in on this debate as our conclusion is the same under any of these standards.

2015(In re Brittany C. (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 847, 853-854 .) Implicit in this standard is that "a parental relationship is necessary for the exception to apply, not merely a friendly or familiar one." (In re Jasmine D. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 1339, 1350 .) The existence of this relationship is determined by taking into consideration "[t]he age of the child, the portion of the child's life spent in the parent's 4 custody, the 'positive' or 'negative' effect of interaction between parent and child, and the child's particular needs . . . ." (In re Autumn H., supra, 27 Cal.App.4th at p. 576 .) There is

2015(In re Brittany C. (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 847, 853-854 .) Implicit in this standard is that "a parental relationship is necessary for the exception to apply, not merely a friendly or familiar one." (In re Jasmine D. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 1339, 1350 .) The existence of this relationship is determined by taking into consideration "[t]he age of the child, the portion of the child's life spent in the parent's custody, the 'positive' or 'negative' effect of interaction between parent and child, and the child's particular needs . . . ." (In re Autumn H., supra, 27 Cal.App.4th at p. 576 .) There is a

2015(In re Brittany C. (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 847, 853-854 .) Implicit in this standard is that "a parental relationship is necessary for the exception to apply, not merely a friendly or familiar one." (In re Jasmine D. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 1339, 1350 .) The existence of this relationship is determined by taking into consideration "[t]he age of the child, the portion of the child's life spent in the parent's 4 custody, the 'positive' or 'negative' effect of interaction between parent and child, and the child's particular needs . . . ." (In re Autumn H., supra, 27 Cal.App.4th at p. 576 .) There is

2015(In re Brittany C. (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 847, 853-854 .) Implicit in this standard is that "a parental relationship is necessary for the exception to apply, not merely a friendly or familiar one." (In re Jasmine D. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 1339, 1350 .) The existence of this relationship is determined by taking into consideration "[t]he age of the child, the portion of the child's life spent in the parent's custody, the 'positive' or 'negative' effect of interaction between parent and child, and the child's particular needs . . . ." (In re Autumn H., supra, 27 Cal.App.4th at p. 576 .) There is a

2015(In re Brittany C. (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 847, 853-854 .) Implicit in this standard is that "a parental relationship is necessary for the exception to apply, not merely a friendly or familiar one." (In re Jasmine D. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 1339, 1350 .) The existence of this relationship is determined by taking into consideration "[t]he age of the child, the portion of the child's life spent in the parent's 4 custody, the 'positive' or 'negative' effect of interaction between parent and child, and the child's particular needs . . . ." (In re Autumn H., supra, 27 Cal.App.4th at p. 576 .) There is

2015(In re Brittany C. (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 847, 853-854 .) Implicit in this standard is that "a parental relationship is necessary for the exception to apply, not merely a friendly or familiar one." (In re Jasmine D. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 1339, 1350 .) The existence of this relationship is determined by taking into consideration "[t]he age of the child, the portion of the child's life spent in the parent's custody, the 'positive' or 'negative' effect of interaction between parent and child, and the child's particular needs . . . ." (In re Autumn H., supra, 27 Cal.App.4th at p. 576 .) There is a

2023(People v. Mataele (2022) 13 Cal.5th 372, 419 ; accord, Harry v. Ring the Alarm, LLC (2019) 34 Cal.App.5th 749, 758 .) “ ‘When an appellate court addresses a claim of jury misinstruction, it must assess the instructions as a whole, viewing the challenged instruction in context with other instructions, in order to determine if there was a reasonable likelihood the jury applied the challenged instruction in an impermissible manner.’ ” (People v. Grimes (2016) 1 Cal.5th 698, 729 ; accord, Largey v. Intrastate Radiotelephone, Inc. (1982) 136 Cal.App.3d 660, 671 [“ ‘It is a fundamental rule that al

2021(See People v. 9 Frahs, supra, 9 Cal.5th at p. 639 [noting that “the Legislature left it to trial courts to make fact-specific evaluations of risk under [§] 1001.36, [subd.] (b)(1)(F)].) Analyzing similar language requiring consideration of “dangerousness” in section 1170.18, subdivision (b), Courts of Appeal have applied the abuse of discretion standard.6 (People v. Jefferson (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 235, 242 ; People v. Hall (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 1255, 1264 .) Because section 1001.36’s dangerousness prong references section 1170.18, and requires that the court be “satisfied” the defendant will

2021(See People v. 9 Frahs, supra, 9 Cal.5th at p. 639 [noting that “the Legislature left it to trial courts to make fact-specific evaluations of risk under [§] 1001.36, [subd.] (b)(1)(F)].) Analyzing similar language requiring consideration of “dangerousness” in section 1170.18, subdivision (b), Courts of Appeal have applied the abuse of discretion standard.6 (People v. Jefferson (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 235, 242 ; People v. Hall (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 1255, 1264 .) Because section 1001.36’s dangerousness prong references section 1170.18, and requires that the court be “satisfied” the defendant will

2020(People v. Posey (2004) 32 Cal.4th 193, 218 .) CALCRIM No. 1112 is an accurate statement of the law: The instruction contains both a clear statement of the elements of the offense and a brief clarification of some of the principles of law necessary for the jury’s understanding of its charge.

2020(People v. Mil (2012) 53 Cal.4th 400, 409 .) This duty extends also to instruction “ ‘ “on general principles of law that are closely and openly connected to the facts and that are necessary for the jury’s understanding of the case.” ’ ” (People v. Mitchell (2019) 7 Cal.5th 561, 586 .) An appellate court reviews a claim of instructional error de novo.

2020(People v. Mil (2012) 53 Cal.4th 400, 409 .) This duty extends also to instruction “ ‘ “on general principles of law that are closely and openly connected to the facts and that are necessary for the jury’s understanding of the case.” ’ ” (People v. Mitchell (2019) 7 Cal.5th 561, 586 .) An appellate court reviews a claim of instructional error de novo.

2014(People v. Taylor (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 757, 761 ; see also In re K.F. (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 655, 661 .) If, however, “the propriety of a restitution order turns on the interpretation of a statute, a question of law is raised, which is subject to de novo review on appeal.” (People v. Williams (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 142, 146 ; In re Alexander A. (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 847, 852 .) Oscar F.’s challenge to the restitution order is two-fold.

2014(People v. Taylor (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 757, 761 ; see also In re K.F. (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 655, 661 .) If, however, “the propriety of a restitution order turns on the interpretation of a statute, a question of law is raised, which is subject to de novo review on appeal.” (People v. Williams (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 142, 146 ; In re Alexander A. (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 847, 852 .) Oscar F.’s challenge to the restitution order is two-fold.

2014ICWA requires notification be provided to an Indian tribe “when there is reason to believe the child may be an Indian child.” (In re Francisco W. (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 695, 703 .) “Notice to the tribe must include available information about the maternal and paternal grandparents and great-grandparents, including maiden, married and former 9 There is a split of authority regarding whether an appellate court reviews a challenge involving the beneficial relationship exception for substantial evidence, abuse of discretion, or a combination of the two.

2013(Jackson v. Virginia (1979) 443 U.S. 307, 318-319 ; People v. Tafoya (2007) 42 Cal.4th 147, 170 .) The reviewing court does not reweigh the evidence or determine the credibility of the witnesses.

2013(Jackson v. Virginia (1979) 443 U.S. 307, 318-319 ; People v. Tafoya (2007) 42 Cal.4th 147, 170 .) The reviewing court does not reweigh the evidence or determine the credibility of the witnesses.