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.
8 California opinions name it 1 courts 2013–2016 0 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 Cliffton B.red2 sentences2016(In re Cliffton B. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 415, 424-425 [Fourth Dist., Div. Three applied the substantial evidence standard]; In re Autumn H. (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 567 , 576 14 [Fourth Dist., Div. One applied the substantial evidence standard]; In re Jasmine D. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 1339, 1351 [First Dist., Div. Three applying the abuse of discretion standard]; In re Aaliyah R. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 437, 449 [Second Dist., Div. Eight applying the abuse of discretion standard]; In re K.P. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 614, 621-622 [Second Dist., Div. Seven applying the hybrid standard]; In re Bailey J. 2015(In re Cliffton B. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 415, 424-425 [Fourth Dist., Div. Three applied the substantial evidence standard]; In re Autumn H. (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 567, 576 [Fourth Dist., Div. One applied the substantial evidence standard]; In re Jasmine D. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 1339, 1351 [First Dist., Div. Three applying the abuse of discretion standard]; In re Aaliyah R. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 437, 449 [Second Dist., Div. Eight applying the abuse of discretion standard]; In re K.P. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 614, 621-622 [Second Dist., Div. Seven applying the hybrid standard]; In re Bailey J. (20 | 6 | 6 |
In Re Autumn H.green2 sentences2016(In re Cliffton B. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 415, 424-425 [Fourth Dist., Div. Three applied the substantial evidence standard]; In re Autumn H. (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 567 , 576 14 [Fourth Dist., Div. One applied the substantial evidence standard]; In re Jasmine D. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 1339, 1351 [First Dist., Div. Three applying the abuse of discretion standard]; In re Aaliyah R. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 437, 449 [Second Dist., Div. Eight applying the abuse of discretion standard]; In re K.P. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 614, 621-622 [Second Dist., Div. Seven applying the hybrid standard]; In re Bailey J. 2015(In re Cliffton B. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 415, 424-425 [Fourth Dist., Div. Three applied the substantial evidence standard]; In re Autumn H. (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 567, 576 [Fourth Dist., Div. One applied the substantial evidence standard]; In re Jasmine D. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 1339, 1351 [First Dist., Div. Three applying the abuse of discretion standard]; In re Aaliyah R. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 437, 449 [Second Dist., Div. Eight applying the abuse of discretion standard]; In re K.P. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 614, 621-622 [Second Dist., Div. Seven applying the hybrid standard]; In re Bailey J. (20 | 5 | 6 |
In Re Jasmine D.red2 sentences2016(In re Cliffton B. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 415, 424-425 [Fourth Dist., Div. Three applied the substantial evidence standard]; In re Autumn H. (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 567 , 576 14 [Fourth Dist., Div. One applied the substantial evidence standard]; In re Jasmine D. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 1339, 1351 [First Dist., Div. Three applying the abuse of discretion standard]; In re Aaliyah R. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 437, 449 [Second Dist., Div. Eight applying the abuse of discretion standard]; In re K.P. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 614, 621-622 [Second Dist., Div. Seven applying the hybrid standard]; In re Bailey J. 2015(In re Cliffton B. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 415, 424-425 [Fourth Dist., Div. Three applied the substantial evidence standard]; In re Autumn H. (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 567, 576 [Fourth Dist., Div. One applied the substantial evidence standard]; In re Jasmine D. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 1339, 1351 [First Dist., Div. Three applying the abuse of discretion standard]; In re Aaliyah R. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 437, 449 [Second Dist., Div. Eight applying the abuse of discretion standard]; In re K.P. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 614, 621-622 [Second Dist., Div. Seven applying the hybrid standard]; In re Bailey J. (20 | 3 | 6 |
In Re Aaliyah R.green2 sentences2014PARENT-CHILD BOND Mother contends the juvenile court erred by terminating her parental rights because the court should have applied the parent-child bond exception to termination. (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i).) If a juvenile court finds a dependent child is adoptable, then it will terminate parental rights unless one of the statutorily enumerated exceptions is applicable. (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1).) One of the enumerated exceptions provides that parental rights shall not be terminated if “[t]he parents have maintained regular visitation and co ntact 31 with the child and the child would benefit 2013If a juvenile court finds a dependent child is adoptable, then it will terminate parental rights unless one of the statutorily enumerated exceptions is applicable. (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1).) One of the enumerated exceptions provides that parental rights shall not be terminated if “[t]he parents have maintained regular visitation and contact with the child and the child would benefit from continuing the relationship.” (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i).) We review the juvenile court’s decision to not apply the parent- child bond exception for an abuse of discretion.5 (In re Aaliyah R. (2006) 136 Cal. | 3 | 6 |
Santa Clara County Department of Family & Children's Services v. Patricia J.green2 sentences2016(In re Cliffton B. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 415, 424-425 [Fourth Dist., Div. Three applied the substantial evidence standard]; In re Autumn H. (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 567 , 576 14 [Fourth Dist., Div. One applied the substantial evidence standard]; In re Jasmine D. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 1339, 1351 [First Dist., Div. Three applying the abuse of discretion standard]; In re Aaliyah R. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 437, 449 [Second Dist., Div. Eight applying the abuse of discretion standard]; In re K.P. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 614, 621-622 [Second Dist., Div. Seven applying the hybrid standard]; In re Bailey J. 2015(In re Cliffton B. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 415, 424-425 [Fourth Dist., Div. Three applied the substantial evidence standard]; In re Autumn H. (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 567, 576 [Fourth Dist., Div. One applied the substantial evidence standard]; In re Jasmine D. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 1339, 1351 [First Dist., Div. Three applying the abuse of discretion standard]; In re Aaliyah R. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 437, 449 [Second Dist., Div. Eight applying the abuse of discretion standard]; In re K.P. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 614, 621-622 [Second Dist., Div. Seven applying the hybrid standard]; In re Bailey J. (20 | 3 | 3 |
Los Angeles County Department of Children & Family Services v. Kimberly G.green2 sentences2016(In re Cliffton B. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 415, 424-425 [Fourth Dist., Div. Three applied the substantial evidence standard]; In re Autumn H. (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 567 , 576 14 [Fourth Dist., Div. One applied the substantial evidence standard]; In re Jasmine D. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 1339, 1351 [First Dist., Div. Three applying the abuse of discretion standard]; In re Aaliyah R. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 437, 449 [Second Dist., Div. Eight applying the abuse of discretion standard]; In re K.P. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 614, 621-622 [Second Dist., Div. Seven applying the hybrid standard]; In re Bailey J. 2015(In re Cliffton B. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 415, 424-425 [Fourth Dist., Div. Three applied the substantial evidence standard]; In re Autumn H. (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 567, 576 [Fourth Dist., Div. One applied the substantial evidence standard]; In re Jasmine D. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 1339, 1351 [First Dist., Div. Three applying the abuse of discretion standard]; In re Aaliyah R. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 437, 449 [Second Dist., Div. Eight applying the abuse of discretion standard]; In re K.P. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 614, 621-622 [Second Dist., Div. Seven applying the hybrid standard]; In re Bailey J. (20 | 3 | 3 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In Re Angel B.
green
2 sentences2014(In re Angel B. (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 454, 468 .) We review the juvenile court’s decision to not apply the parent-child bond exception for an abuse of discretion.7 (Aaliyah R., at p. 449.) The record reflects Mother regularly visited the three children, although sometimes she was late due to unreliable transportation. 2013(In re Angel B. (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 454, 468 .) We review the juvenile court’s decision to not apply the parent-child bond exception for an abuse of discretion.3 (In re Aaliyah R., at p. 449.) It appears from the record that Father missed some visits when the dependency initially started, but otherwise consistently visited L.P. | 2 | 2013–2014 |
Los Angeles County Department of Children & Family Services v. Daniel R.
green
1 sentence2015(In re Andrea R. (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 1093, 1108 .) Where, as here, the 4 Mother argued below that the parent-child bond exception, under section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1)(B)(i), also applied. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
In Re Brittany C.
green
1 sentence2015Termination of parental rights was inevitable because C.P. was going to be adopted, the parent-child bond exception did not apply and the child would not be “greatly harmed” if parental rights were terminated. (§ 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(B)(i); In re Brittany C. (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 847, 853-854 .) Indeed, it is not clear that C.P. knows who Father is. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
In Re Jason J.
green
2 sentences2013In In re Jason J. (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 922, 937 , the court explained that In re S.B. “does not, of course, stand for the proposition that a termination order is 18 subject to reversal whenever there is ‘some measure of benefit’ in continued contact between parent and child.” The court then gave the following rule: “‘[F]or the [parent- child bond] exception to apply, the emotional attachment between the child and parent must be that of parent and child rather than one of being a friendly visitor or friendly nonparent relative, such as an aunt.’ [Citation.]” (Id. at p. 938.) Given that the Fo 2013In In re Jason J. (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 922, 937 , the court explained that In re S.B. “does not, of course, stand for the proposition that a termination order is 18 subject to reversal whenever there is ‘some measure of benefit’ in continued contact between parent and child.” The court then gave the following rule: “‘[F]or the [parent- child bond] exception to apply, the emotional attachment between the child and parent must be that of parent and child rather than one of being a friendly visitor or friendly nonparent relative, such as an aunt.’ [Citation.]” (Id. at p. 938.) Given that the Fo | 1 | 2013–2013 |
In Re SB
green
1 sentence2013(In re S.B. (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 289 , 297.) In In re S.B. the appellate court concluded a parent did not need to prove the child had a “‘primary attachment’ to the parent”; rather, it was sufficient to show “the child has a ‘substantial, positive emotional attachment’ to the parent.” (Id. at p. 299.) Father’s argument is not persuasive because, in a more recent opinion, the Fourth District, Division One Court has changed its position on the parent-child bond exception. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
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.