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.
7 California opinions name it 1 courts 2010–2025 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 Marriage of Jill & Victor D.green2 sentences2025“In determining the threshold issue of whether a parent has ‘left’ . . . her child, the focus of the law is ‘on the voluntary nature of a parent’s abandonment of the parental role rather than on physical desertion by the parent.’ [Citations.] [¶] Thus, this court has held that a parent will not be found to have voluntarily left a child in the care and custody of another where the child is effectively ‘taken’ from the parent by court order [citation]; however, the parent’s later voluntary inaction may constitute a leaving with intent to abandon the child [citation]. [¶] Numerous appellate decis 2024In fact, “[n]umerous appellate decisions have long agreed that the leaving-with-intent-to-abandon- the-child requirement of [Family Code] section 7822 can be established by evidence of a parent’s voluntary inaction after an order granting primary care and custody to the other parent.” (In re Marriage of Jill & Victor D. (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 491, 504 (Marriage of Jill & Victor D.) [collecting cases].) The cases Mother cites are not contrary to this long line of authority. | 1 | 6 |
In Re Jacklyn F.green2 sentences2015(Id. at pp. 749, 757.) We specifically discussed Jacklyn F. and distinguished that opinion in Marriage of Jill, supra, 185 Cal.App.4th 491 , where we addressed the issue as follows: “Numerous appellate decisions have long agreed that the leaving-with-intent-to- abandon-the-child requirement of section 7822 can be established by evidence of a parent’s voluntary inaction after an order granting primary care and custody to the other parent. [Citations.] “Simply stated, ‘nonaction of the parent after a judicial decree removing the child may convert a [judicial] “taking” into a “leaving” [of a chil 2015(Id. at pp. 749-750.) “Jacklyn F. noted, however, it did ‘not discount the possibility that, under different circumstances, it might be proper to conclude that a parent has “left” a child within the meaning of section 7822 despite court intervention,’ but found that the matter on review was ‘not such a case.’ (Jacklyn F., supra, 114 Cal.App.4th at p. 756 .) That was so because, ‘[o]nce the guardianship was granted, [the mother] was no longer legally entitled to custody of the minor without further court order’ and the mother’s ‘conduct following the granting of the guardianship—which included | 1 | 2 |
Matter of Cozzagreen1 sentence2024Mother first cites In re Adoption of Cozza (1912) 163 Cal. 514, 528 (Cozza). | 1 | 1 |
Amy A. v. Quentin A.green1 sentence2010(E.g., Amy A., supra, 132 Cal.App.4th at p. 70 [parent’s “repeated inaction in the face of the custody order provides substantial evidence that he voluntarily surrendered his parental role and thus ‘left’ [the child] within the meaning of section 7822”]; In re Jack H. (1980) 106 Cal.App.3d 257, 264 [ 165 Cal.Rptr. 646 ]; In re Jacqueline H. (1979) 94 Cal.App.3d 808, 815-816 [ 156 Cal.Rptr. 765 ] (hereafter Jacqueline H.); In re Conrich (1963) 221 Cal.App.2d 662, 666-667 [ 34 Cal.Rptr. 658 ]; In re Barton (1959) 168 Cal.App.2d 584, 588-590 [ 336 P.2d 210 ]; In re Maxwell (1953) 117 Cal.App.2d 1 | 1 | 1 |
Detrich v. Dorothy H.green2 sentences2010(E.g., Amy A., supra, 132 Cal.App.4th at p. 70 [parent’s “repeated inaction in the face of the custody order provides substantial evidence that he voluntarily surrendered his parental role and thus ‘left’ [the child] within the meaning of section 7822”]; In re Jack H. (1980) 106 Cal.App.3d 257, 264 [ 165 Cal.Rptr. 646 ]; In re Jacqueline H. (1979) 94 Cal.App.3d 808, 815-816 [ 156 Cal.Rptr. 765 ] (hereafter Jacqueline H.); In re Conrich (1963) 221 Cal.App.2d 662, 666-667 [ 34 Cal.Rptr. 658 ]; In re Barton (1959) 168 Cal.App.2d 584, 588-590 [ 336 P.2d 210 ]; In re Maxwell (1953) 117 Cal.App.2d 1 2010(E.g., Amy A., supra, 132 Cal.App.4th at p. 70 [parent’s “repeated inaction in the face of the custody order provides substantial evidence that he voluntarily surrendered his parental role and thus ‘left’ [the child] within the meaning of section 7822”]; In re Jack H. (1980) 106 Cal.App.3d 257, 264 [ 165 Cal.Rptr. 646 ]; In re Jacqueline H. (1979) 94 Cal.App.3d 808, 815-816 [ 156 Cal.Rptr. 765 ] (hereafter Jacqueline H.); In re Conrich (1963) 221 Cal.App.2d 662, 666-667 [ 34 Cal.Rptr. 658 ]; In re Barton (1959) 168 Cal.App.2d 584, 588-590 [ 336 P.2d 210 ]; In re Maxwell (1953) 117 Cal.App.2d 1 | 1 | 1 |
Jacqueline H. v. Maretta M.green2 sentences2010(E.g., Amy A., supra, 132 Cal.App.4th at p. 70 [parent’s “repeated inaction in the face of the custody order provides substantial evidence that he voluntarily surrendered his parental role and thus ‘left’ [the child] within the meaning of section 7822”]; In re Jack H. (1980) 106 Cal.App.3d 257, 264 [ 165 Cal.Rptr. 646 ]; In re Jacqueline H. (1979) 94 Cal.App.3d 808, 815-816 [ 156 Cal.Rptr. 765 ] (hereafter Jacqueline H.); In re Conrich (1963) 221 Cal.App.2d 662, 666-667 [ 34 Cal.Rptr. 658 ]; In re Barton (1959) 168 Cal.App.2d 584, 588-590 [ 336 P.2d 210 ]; In re Maxwell (1953) 117 Cal.App.2d 1 2010(E.g., Amy A., supra, 132 Cal.App.4th at p. 70 [parent’s “repeated inaction in the face of the custody order provides substantial evidence that he voluntarily surrendered his parental role and thus ‘left’ [the child] within the meaning of section 7822”]; In re Jack H. (1980) 106 Cal.App.3d 257, 264 [ 165 Cal.Rptr. 646 ]; In re Jacqueline H. (1979) 94 Cal.App.3d 808, 815-816 [ 156 Cal.Rptr. 765 ] (hereafter Jacqueline H.); In re Conrich (1963) 221 Cal.App.2d 662, 666-667 [ 34 Cal.Rptr. 658 ]; In re Barton (1959) 168 Cal.App.2d 584, 588-590 [ 336 P.2d 210 ]; In re Maxwell (1953) 117 Cal.App.2d 1 | 1 | 1 |
Barrett v. Bartongreen2 sentences2010(E.g., Amy A., supra, 132 Cal.App.4th at p. 70 [parent’s “repeated inaction in the face of the custody order provides substantial evidence that he voluntarily surrendered his parental role and thus ‘left’ [the child] within the meaning of section 7822”]; In re Jack H. (1980) 106 Cal.App.3d 257, 264 [ 165 Cal.Rptr. 646 ]; In re Jacqueline H. (1979) 94 Cal.App.3d 808, 815-816 [ 156 Cal.Rptr. 765 ] (hereafter Jacqueline H.); In re Conrich (1963) 221 Cal.App.2d 662, 666-667 [ 34 Cal.Rptr. 658 ]; In re Barton (1959) 168 Cal.App.2d 584, 588-590 [ 336 P.2d 210 ]; In re Maxwell (1953) 117 Cal.App.2d 1 2010(E.g., Amy A., supra, 132 Cal.App.4th at p. 70 [parent’s “repeated inaction in the face of the custody order provides substantial evidence that he voluntarily surrendered his parental role and thus ‘left’ [the child] within the meaning of section 7822”]; In re Jack H. (1980) 106 Cal.App.3d 257, 264 [ 165 Cal.Rptr. 646 ]; In re Jacqueline H. (1979) 94 Cal.App.3d 808, 815-816 [ 156 Cal.Rptr. 765 ] (hereafter Jacqueline H.); In re Conrich (1963) 221 Cal.App.2d 662, 666-667 [ 34 Cal.Rptr. 658 ]; In re Barton (1959) 168 Cal.App.2d 584, 588-590 [ 336 P.2d 210 ]; In re Maxwell (1953) 117 Cal.App.2d 1 | 1 | 1 |
In Re Maxwellgreen2 sentences2010(E.g., Amy A., supra, 132 Cal.App.4th at p. 70 [parent’s “repeated inaction in the face of the custody order provides substantial evidence that he voluntarily surrendered his parental role and thus ‘left’ [the child] within the meaning of section 7822”]; In re Jack H. (1980) 106 Cal.App.3d 257, 264 [ 165 Cal.Rptr. 646 ]; In re Jacqueline H. (1979) 94 Cal.App.3d 808, 815-816 [ 156 Cal.Rptr. 765 ] (hereafter Jacqueline H.); In re Conrich (1963) 221 Cal.App.2d 662, 666-667 [ 34 Cal.Rptr. 658 ]; In re Barton (1959) 168 Cal.App.2d 584, 588-590 [ 336 P.2d 210 ]; In re Maxwell (1953) 117 Cal.App.2d 1 2010(E.g., Amy A., supra, 132 Cal.App.4th at p. 70 [parent’s “repeated inaction in the face of the custody order provides substantial evidence that he voluntarily surrendered his parental role and thus ‘left’ [the child] within the meaning of section 7822”]; In re Jack H. (1980) 106 Cal.App.3d 257, 264 [ 165 Cal.Rptr. 646 ]; In re Jacqueline H. (1979) 94 Cal.App.3d 808, 815-816 [ 156 Cal.Rptr. 765 ] (hereafter Jacqueline H.); In re Conrich (1963) 221 Cal.App.2d 662, 666-667 [ 34 Cal.Rptr. 658 ]; In re Barton (1959) 168 Cal.App.2d 584, 588-590 [ 336 P.2d 210 ]; In re Maxwell (1953) 117 Cal.App.2d 1 | 1 | 1 |
In Re Conrichgreen2 sentences2010(E.g., Amy A., supra, 132 Cal.App.4th at p. 70 [parent’s “repeated inaction in the face of the custody order provides substantial evidence that he voluntarily surrendered his parental role and thus ‘left’ [the child] within the meaning of section 7822”]; In re Jack H. (1980) 106 Cal.App.3d 257, 264 [ 165 Cal.Rptr. 646 ]; In re Jacqueline H. (1979) 94 Cal.App.3d 808, 815-816 [ 156 Cal.Rptr. 765 ] (hereafter Jacqueline H.); In re Conrich (1963) 221 Cal.App.2d 662, 666-667 [ 34 Cal.Rptr. 658 ]; In re Barton (1959) 168 Cal.App.2d 584, 588-590 [ 336 P.2d 210 ]; In re Maxwell (1953) 117 Cal.App.2d 1 2010(E.g., Amy A., supra, 132 Cal.App.4th at p. 70 [parent’s “repeated inaction in the face of the custody order provides substantial evidence that he voluntarily surrendered his parental role and thus ‘left’ [the child] within the meaning of section 7822”]; In re Jack H. (1980) 106 Cal.App.3d 257, 264 [ 165 Cal.Rptr. 646 ]; In re Jacqueline H. (1979) 94 Cal.App.3d 808, 815-816 [ 156 Cal.Rptr. 765 ] (hereafter Jacqueline H.); In re Conrich (1963) 221 Cal.App.2d 662, 666-667 [ 34 Cal.Rptr. 658 ]; In re Barton (1959) 168 Cal.App.2d 584, 588-590 [ 336 P.2d 210 ]; In re Maxwell (1953) 117 Cal.App.2d 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
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.