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 1979–2009 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 BGgreen2 sentences1994True, courts occasionally employ the phrase ( Cynthia D. v. Superior Court, supra, 5 Cal.4th at p. 256 ; see also In re Brittany M., supra, 19 Cal. App.4th at p. 1403 ); but 20 years ago the Supreme Court observed, "Thus, prior to the enactment of the Family Law Act in 1969 [former Civil Code, section 4600 et seq.], the decisions had held that an award denying custody to the parent in favor of a nonparent could stand only if the parent had been proven to be unfit. (1a) As we shall show, with the enactment of the Family Law Act, the standard of unfitness was dropped and the Legislature created 1994True, courts occasionally employ the phrase ( Cynthia D. v. Superior Court, supra, 5 Cal.4th at p. 256 ; see also In re Brittany M., supra, 19 Cal. App.4th at p. 1403 ); but 20 years ago the Supreme Court observed, "Thus, prior to the enactment of the Family Law Act in 1969 [former Civil Code, section 4600 et seq.], the decisions had held that an award denying custody to the parent in favor of a nonparent could stand only if the parent had been proven to be unfit. (1a) As we shall show, with the enactment of the Family Law Act, the standard of unfitness was dropped and the Legislature created | 2 | 5 |
Guardianship of Zachary H.green2 sentences2009(See Guardianship of Zachary H., supra, 73 Cal.App.4th at p. 67 [there may be circumstances where placement with the parent is detrimental to the child *1142 even though the parent is not unfit].) This is an appropriate balancing of the competing interests in cases involving custody because a custody ruling under section 3041 does not permanently sever the parental relationship, but it does have the potential to severely impact a child's well-being. 2009(See Guardianship of Zachary H., supra, 73 Cal.App.4th at p. 67 [there may be circumstances where placement with the parent is detrimental to the child even though the parent is not unfit].) This is an appropriate balancing of the competing interests in cases involving custody because a custody ruling under section 3041 does not permanently sever the parental relationship, but it does have the potential to severely impact a child’s well-being. | 2 | 2 |
Detrich v. Carolyn B.green2 sentences1994True, courts occasionally employ the phrase ( Cynthia D. v. Superior Court, supra, 5 Cal.4th at p. 256 ; see also In re Brittany M., supra, 19 Cal. App.4th at p. 1403 ); but 20 years ago the Supreme Court observed, "Thus, prior to the enactment of the Family Law Act in 1969 [former Civil Code, section 4600 et seq.], the decisions had held that an award denying custody to the parent in favor of a nonparent could stand only if the parent had been proven to be unfit. (1a) As we shall show, with the enactment of the Family Law Act, the standard of unfitness was dropped and the Legislature created 1994True, courts occasionally employ the phrase ( Cynthia D. v. Superior Court, supra, 5 Cal.4th at p. 256 ; see also In re Brittany M., supra, 19 Cal. App.4th at p. 1403 ); but 20 years ago the Supreme Court observed, "Thus, prior to the enactment of the Family Law Act in 1969 [former Civil Code, section 4600 et seq.], the decisions had held that an award denying custody to the parent in favor of a nonparent could stand only if the parent had been proven to be unfit. (1a) As we shall show, with the enactment of the Family Law Act, the standard of unfitness was dropped and the Legislature created | 2 | 2 |
In Re Brittany M.green2 sentences1994True, courts occasionally employ the phrase ( Cynthia D. v. Superior Court, supra, 5 Cal.4th at p. 256 ; see also In re Brittany M., supra, 19 Cal. App.4th at p. 1403 ); but 20 years ago the Supreme Court observed, "Thus, prior to the enactment of the Family Law Act in 1969 [former Civil Code, section 4600 et seq.], the decisions had held that an award denying custody to the parent in favor of a nonparent could stand only if the parent had been proven to be unfit. (1a) As we shall show, with the enactment of the Family Law Act, the standard of unfitness was dropped and the Legislature created 1994True, courts occasionally employ the phrase (Cynthia D. v. Superior Court, supra, 5 Cal.4th at p. 256 ; see also In re Brittany M., supra, 19 Cal.App.4th at p. 1403 ); but 20 years ago the Supreme Court observed, “Thus, prior to the enactment of the Family Law Act in 1969 [former Civil Code, section 4600 et seq.], the decisions had held that an award denying custody to the parent in favor of a nonparent could stand only if the parent had been proven to be unfit, As we shall show, with the enactment of the Family Law Act, the standard of unfitness was dropped and the Legislature created the new | 2 | 2 |
In Re Jasmon O.green2 sentences1994Code, § 232, subd. (a)(7).) Recently, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that these findings are "the equivalent of a finding of unfitness" with respect to the child involved. ( In re Jasmon O. (1994) 8 Cal.4th 398, 423 [ 33 Cal. Rptr.2d 85 , 878 P.2d 1297 ].) The detriment language was continued when the dependency laws were revamped in 1989, and with good reason: Despite Jill's protestations to the contrary (see pt. 1994Code, § 232, subd. (a)(7).) Recently, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that these findings are "the equivalent of a finding of unfitness" with respect to the child involved. ( In re Jasmon O. (1994) 8 Cal.4th 398, 423 [ 33 Cal. Rptr.2d 85 , 878 P.2d 1297 ].) The detriment language was continued when the dependency laws were revamped in 1989, and with good reason: Despite Jill's protestations to the contrary (see pt. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Aadlandgreen2 sentences1979(Cf., In re B.G., supra, 11 Cal.3d 679 ; see In re Melissa H., supra, 38 Cal. App.3d 173, 175 .) The wrongdoing of a parent is not the real concern of the court in this phase of the hearing (see People v. Aadland, 193 Cal. App.2d 584, 591-592 [ 14 Cal. Rptr. 462 ]). 1979(Cf., In re B.G., supra, 11 Cal.3d 679 ; see In re Melissa H., supra, 38 Cal. App.3d 173, 175 .) The wrongdoing of a parent is not the real concern of the court in this phase of the hearing (see People v. Aadland, 193 Cal. App.2d 584, 591-592 [ 14 Cal. Rptr. 462 ]). | 1 | 1 |
In Re Melissa H.green1 sentence1979(Cf., In re B.G., supra, 11 Cal.3d 679 ; see In re Melissa H., supra, 38 Cal. App.3d 173, 175 .) The wrongdoing of a parent is not the real concern of the court in this phase of the hearing (see People v. Aadland, 193 Cal. App.2d 584, 591-592 [ 14 Cal. Rptr. 462 ]). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Cynthia D. v. Superior Court
green
2 sentences1994True, courts occasionally employ the phrase ( Cynthia D. v. Superior Court, supra, 5 Cal.4th at p. 256 ; see also In re Brittany M., supra, 19 Cal. App.4th at p. 1403 ); but 20 years ago the Supreme Court observed, "Thus, prior to the enactment of the Family Law Act in 1969 [former Civil Code, section 4600 et seq.], the decisions had held that an award denying custody to the parent in favor of a nonparent could stand only if the parent had been proven to be unfit. (1a) As we shall show, with the enactment of the Family Law Act, the standard of unfitness was dropped and the Legislature created 1994True, courts occasionally employ the phrase (Cynthia D. v. Superior Court, supra, 5 Cal.4th at p. 256 ; see also In re Brittany M., supra, 19 Cal.App.4th at p. 1403 ); but 20 years ago the Supreme Court observed, “Thus, prior to the enactment of the Family Law Act in 1969 [former Civil Code, section 4600 et seq.], the decisions had held that an award denying custody to the parent in favor of a nonparent could stand only if the parent had been proven to be unfit, As we shall show, with the enactment of the Family Law Act, the standard of unfitness was dropped and the Legislature created the new | 2 | 1994–1994 |
In Re BJB
green
1 sentence1988G. (1974) 11 Cal.3d 679, 695 [ 114 Cal.Rptr. 444 , 523 P.2d 244 ].) “No showing of parental unfitness is required. [Citation.] Several cases have sustained findings of detriment where a stable, positive, ‘de facto’ parental relationship would be disrupted or destroyed by a change in custody.” (In re B.J.B., supra, 185 Cal.App.3d 1201, 1209 .) No further finding by the trial court was required. | 1 | 1988–1988 |
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.