8 California opinions name it 1 courts 2010–2025 5 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 sentences2010Indeed, after S.A.'s counsel spoke, the court determined "that [S.A.] holds the privilege, and it's not been waived." 2 We also reject Kent's assertion S.A. "forfeited" the psychotherapist-patient privilege because of a "lack of immediacy in raising the issue." Kent cites Cole C., supra, 174 Cal.App.4th at page 912 , for the proposition that this court found the invocation of the psychotherapist-patient privilege was untimely in that case because it was made "three days after trial commenced." In Cole C., however, we found the invocation timely, explaining: "At the start of the contested juris 2010Indeed, after S.A.’s counsel spoke, the court determined “that [S.A.] holds the privilege, and it’s not been waived.” 2 We also reject Kent’s assertion S.A. “forfeited” the psychotherapist-patient privilege because of a “lack of immediacy in raising the issue.” Kent cites Cole C., supra, 174 Cal.App.4th at page 912 , for the proposition that this court found the invocation of the psychotherapist-patient privilege was untimely in that case because it was made “three days after trial commenced.” In Cole C., however, we found the invocation timely, explaining: “At the start of the contested juris | 2 | 2 |
In Re AEgreen2 sentences2023The Agency relies primarily on In re A.E. (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1 , in which the appellate court found a father forfeited a similar argument by failing to object when the juvenile court ordered that he participate in parent education classes and counseling. 2013(In re A.E., supra, 168 Cal.App.4th at p. 2.) Following a contested jurisdiction and disposition hearing, the juvenile court declared the children dependents of the court. | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In Re Jonathon S.
green
1 sentence2025Legal framework To be an Indian child within the meaning of ICWA, a child must be either (1) a member or citizen of a federally recognized Indian tribe, or (2) eligible for membership or citizenship in such a tribe and the biological child of a member or citizen. ( 25 U.S.C. § 1903 (4), (8); § 224.1, subds. (a)(4), (b)(1); In re Jonathon S. (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 334, 338 .) The child welfare department and the juvenile court have an “affirmative and continuing duty to inquire” whether a child in a dependency proceeding “is or may be an 21 Indian child.” (§ 224.2, subd. (a).)3 “The duty to inq | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Sacramento Cnty. Dep't of Child v. J.C. (In re A.W.)
green
1 sentence2025DISCUSSION “The ICWA protects the interests of Indian children and promotes the stability and security of Indian tribes by establishing minimum standards for removal of Indian children from their families, and by permitting tribal participation in dependency proceedings. [Citations.] A major purpose of the ICWA is to protect ‘Indian children who are members of or are eligible for membership in an Indian tribe.’ ” (In re A.W. (2019) 38 Cal.App.5th 655, 662 .) The ICWA defines an “ ‘Indian child’ ” as a child who “is either (a) a member of an Indian tribe or (b) is eligible for membership in an | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Los Angeles County Department of Children & Family Services v. Jennifer C.
green
1 sentence2022(In re Charlotte V. (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 51, 57 .) II Noncompliance with Section 224.2, Subdivision (b) Duty of Initial Inquiry Father contends, and the Agency agrees, that substantial evidence does not support the juvenile court’s finding that ICWA does not apply to Y.M.’s case and, in particular, that substantial evidence does not support its implied finding under section 224.2, subdivision (i)(2) that Agency complied with its duty of initial inquiry under section 224.2, subdivision (b). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
L. A. Cnty. Dep't of Children & Family Servs. v. Lisa E. (In Re R.T.)
green
1 sentence2021(In re R.T. (2017) 3 Cal.5th 622, 633 .) 9 In this case, even if we assume the factual allegations in the petition are all supported by substantial evidence, there is no substantial evidence supporting the third statutory element enumerated above, i.e., that Minors have suffered serious physical harm or illness, or that there exists a substantial risk of such harm or illness. (§ 300(b)(1).) As Mother points out, the allegation that Mother threw O.D. in 2018 involved an incident that occurred more than two years before the contested jurisdiction and disposition hearing. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
San Diego County Health & Human Services Agency v. Mary M.
green
1 sentence2013(In re A.S., supra, 202 Cal.App.4th at p. 247 .) In making its order, the court explained, “it is appropriate to remove the child from the home at this point because of the lack of an explanation as to how this happened.” (Ibid.) The appellate court affirmed the juvenile court’s order. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
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.