Account information only. It is never shown to the AI client you connect, and it is kept apart from your research — which is not logged at all.
Your token is the key to the MCP: claude.ai custom connectors and ChatGPT developer mode take it in the URL; Claude Code and the rest take it as a bearer header. It is also in your welcome email. Install instructions.
No token yet. One token per address, shown once and mailed to you with setup steps — claude.ai custom connectors and ChatGPT developer mode need it in the URL; Claude Code and the rest take it as a bearer header. Install instructions.
Your MCP token. Anyone holding it can search on your subscription, so keep it off shared screens.
Header form (recommended) — this endpoint, with
Authorization: Bearer <your token>.
URL form — for claude.ai custom connectors and ChatGPT developer mode, which cannot set a header. The whole credential is in the address:
The dedicated fast index: searches run on a machine nobody else queues for, with full-text highlighted excerpts. Higher MCP limits, and semantic search when it lands.
See ProThank you.
Manage billingDelete my account: email [email protected] and it is done by hand, usually the same day. (Self-serve deletion is not built yet.)
Free, and it takes a minute. Registered visitors skip the Cloudflare checks, and your MCP token for Claude or ChatGPT is issued at the end of this.
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.
Here is your MCP token. It is shown once — it is also in the welcome email we just sent you, with setup steps.
Header form (recommended) — this endpoint, with
Authorization: Bearer <your token>.
URL form — for claude.ai custom connectors and ChatGPT developer mode, which cannot set a header. The whole credential is in the address:
That address already had a token, so we did not issue a second one — two live credentials for one mailbox is how people end up with a working laptop and a broken office machine. Your connector URL is in your inbox under “Your Syfert legal research connector URL”; if it is gone, call 904-383-7448.
8 California opinions name it 1 courts 2005–2023 3 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 Elizabeth R.green1 sentence2023(See, e.g., In re Elizabeth R. (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 1774, 1787, 1796 [mother was hospitalized during most of the reunification period; after her release the child welfare agency attempted to restrict visitation]; see generally Georgeanne G. v. Superior Court (2020) 53 Cal.App.5th 856 , 864, fn. 9.) 6 Section 361.49 defines the date of foster care entry as the earlier of the date of the jurisdiction hearing or 60 days after the child was initially removed from the physical custody of his or her parent. | 1 | 1 |
In Re JOgreen2 sentences2022(See In re J.O., supra, 178 Cal.App.4th at p. 153 [the Department must prove a parent cannot arrange for care of a child as of the date of the jurisdiction hearing to support allegations under § 300, subd. (g)]; In re Aaron S., at p. 209 [same].) The Department’s argument Father left the children without provision for support because it was Mother, not Father, who identified the paternal aunt for placement is not persuasive in light of Father’s arrangement with Mother to care for the children. 2022(See In re J.O., supra, 178 Cal.App.4th at p. 153 [the Department must prove a parent cannot arrange for care of a child as of the date of the jurisdiction hearing to support allegations under § 300, subd. (g)]; In re Aaron S., at p. 209 [same].) The Department’s argument Father left the children without provision for support because it was Mother, not Father, who identified the paternal aunt for placement is not persuasive in light of Father’s arrangement with Mother to care for the children. | 1 | 1 |
In Re Marilyn A.green1 sentence2022(See Michael G. v. Superior Court, supra, 69 Cal.App.5th at p. 1141 [“[t]he juvenile court may extend services up to 18 months, however, if it finds there is a substantial probability the child will be returned to the parent’s custody within the extended time period, or if it finds reasonable services were not provided”].) In addition, section 361.5, subdivision (a)(4)(A), and section 366.22, subdivision (b), permit a further extension up to a maximum of 24 months at the 18-month review hearing under certain 11 narrowly defined circumstances. 11 As explained in Michael G. v. Superior Court, su | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
San Diego Cnty. Health & Human Servs. Agency v. E.A. (In re E.A.)
green
1 sentence2022In re E.A. (2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 648 , relied on by the Department, is distinguishable. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
L. A. Cnty. Dep't of Children & Family Servs. v. Lisa E. (In Re R.T.)
green
1 sentence2020S. filed a joinder to mother’s brief that presents no separate arguments. “‘In reviewing the jurisdictional findings and the disposition, we look to see if substantial evidence, contradicted or uncontradicted, supports them. [Citation.] In making this determination, we draw all reasonable inferences from the evidence to support the findings and orders of the dependency court; we review the record in the light most favorable to the court’s determinations; and we note that issues of fact and credibility are the province of the trial court.’” (In re R.T. (2017) 3 Cal.5th 622, 633 .) A. Jurisdicti | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Mark N. v. Superior Court of L.A. Cty.
green
1 sentence2019In In re M.F., supra, 32 Cal.App.5th at page 23 , we stated: "[T]he juvenile court may extend the reunification period past the 18-month review date where the Agency did not provide or offer reasonable services to a parent of a child who was under three years of age at the time of removal." Similarly, Mark N. v. Superior Court (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 996, 1016 , stated 15 Section 361.49 provides that a child is deemed to have entered foster care on the earlier of the date of the jurisdiction hearing or the date that is 60 days after the child is initially removed from the physical custody of his | 1 | 2019–2019 |
San Diego Cnty. Health & Human Servs. Agency v. M.F. (In re M.F.)
green
2 sentences2019In In re M.F., supra, 32 Cal.App.5th at page 23 , we stated: "[T]he juvenile court may extend the reunification period past the 18-month review date where the Agency did not provide or offer reasonable services to a parent of a child who was under three years of age at the time of removal." Similarly, Mark N. v. Superior Court (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 996, 1016 , stated 15 Section 361.49 provides that a child is deemed to have entered foster care on the earlier of the date of the jurisdiction hearing or the date that is 60 days after the child is initially removed from the physical custody of his 2019In In re M.F., supra, 32 Cal.App.5th at page 23 , we stated: "[T]he juvenile court may extend the reunification period past the 18-month review date where the Agency did not provide or offer reasonable services to a parent of a child who was under three years of age at the time of removal." Similarly, Mark N. v. Superior Court (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 996, 1016 , stated 15 Section 361.49 provides that a child is deemed to have entered foster care on the earlier of the date of the jurisdiction hearing or the date that is 60 days after the child is initially removed from the physical custody of his | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Sacramento County Welfare Department v. Lawrence Z.
green
1 sentence2013(In re Tracy Z. (1987) 195 Cal.App.3d 107, 112 .) The notice of appeal, while not specifying the date of the jurisdiction hearing, clearly states that the appeal is from the “Jurisdiction and Disposition Findings.” We construe the notice of appeal liberally in favor of its sufficiency and will address the jurisdictional issue. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
In Re SO
green
1 sentence2013(See In re Shelley J. (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 322, 328-329 ; In re James C. (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 470 ; In re S. O. (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 453 ; Los Angeles County Dept. of Children & Family Services v. Superior Court (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 1408, 1417 ; In re David H. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1626, 1638-1640 ; In re Christopher C. (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 73 , 82- 83.) 7 had failed to make satisfactory progress in the programs he was attending; Father had missed numerous drug testing appointments; and his visits with the Siblings had been inconsistent. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
In Re James C.
green
1 sentence2013(See In re Shelley J. (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 322, 328-329 ; In re James C. (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 470 ; In re S. O. (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 453 ; Los Angeles County Dept. of Children & Family Services v. Superior Court (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 1408, 1417 ; In re David H. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1626, 1638-1640 ; In re Christopher C. (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 73 , 82- 83.) 7 had failed to make satisfactory progress in the programs he was attending; Father had missed numerous drug testing appointments; and his visits with the Siblings had been inconsistent. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
In Re David H.
green
1 sentence2013(See In re Shelley J. (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 322, 328-329 ; In re James C. (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 470 ; In re S. O. (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 453 ; Los Angeles County Dept. of Children & Family Services v. Superior Court (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 1408, 1417 ; In re David H. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1626, 1638-1640 ; In re Christopher C. (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 73 , 82- 83.) 7 had failed to make satisfactory progress in the programs he was attending; Father had missed numerous drug testing appointments; and his visits with the Siblings had been inconsistent. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
In Re Christopher C.
green
1 sentence2013(See In re Shelley J. (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 322, 328-329 ; In re James C. (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 470 ; In re S. O. (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 453 ; Los Angeles County Dept. of Children & Family Services v. Superior Court (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 1408, 1417 ; In re David H. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1626, 1638-1640 ; In re Christopher C. (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 73 , 82- 83.) 7 had failed to make satisfactory progress in the programs he was attending; Father had missed numerous drug testing appointments; and his visits with the Siblings had been inconsistent. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Los Angeles County Department of Children & Family Services v. Superior Court
green
1 sentence2013(See In re Shelley J. (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 322, 328-329 ; In re James C. (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 470 ; In re S. O. (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 453 ; Los Angeles County Dept. of Children & Family Services v. Superior Court (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 1408, 1417 ; In re David H. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1626, 1638-1640 ; In re Christopher C. (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 73 , 82- 83.) 7 had failed to make satisfactory progress in the programs he was attending; Father had missed numerous drug testing appointments; and his visits with the Siblings had been inconsistent. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Shelly J. v. Susan J.
green
1 sentence2013(See In re Shelley J. (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 322, 328-329 ; In re James C. (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 470 ; In re S. O. (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 453 ; Los Angeles County Dept. of Children & Family Services v. Superior Court (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 1408, 1417 ; In re David H. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1626, 1638-1640 ; In re Christopher C. (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 73 , 82- 83.) 7 had failed to make satisfactory progress in the programs he was attending; Father had missed numerous drug testing appointments; and his visits with the Siblings had been inconsistent. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
In Re Aryanna C.
green
1 sentence2005(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 1401(a)(7)(A).) The 18-month review date is calculated from the time the child was physically removed from parental custody. (§ 366.22, subd. (a).) Here, due to the difference in calculations and a short delay in scheduling the contested 12-month review hearing, the 18-month review date was approximately three months after the conclusion of the 12-month contested review hearing. [6] Time limited family reunification services include counseling, substance abuse treatment services, mental health services, assistance to address domestic violence, respite childcare and t | 1 | 2005–2005 |