children violation in California

2024(Odom, supra, 226 Cal.App.3d at p. 1035 .) The appellate court was unconvinced, finding “it is difficult to understand how the children would have been protected even if their movements were severely monitored.” (Ibid.) The court noted that even if the situation was temporary, “[t]he dangers created in the home were so hazardous that … the existence of the hazards 16. even for a short time sufficiently endangered the well-being of the children to be a violation of [section 273a, subdivision (a).]” (Ibid.) This case is not nearly as extreme as Odom.

2021(In re T.V. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 126, 133 ; Kadence P., at pp. 1383- 1384.) Substantial evidence supports the juvenile court’s findings that all four children were at substantial risk of harm as a result of mother allowing father unrestricted access to the children in violation of court orders.

2015Steven B. also testified that he did not believe the children did not want to see him, and attributed the children’s statements to “18 months of therapy.”5 5 During Steven B.’s testimony on cross-examination, counsel for Steven B. advised the court that Steven B. was requesting a hearing pursuant to People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 to request new appointed counsel.

2013By absconding with the children, the mother “effectively undermined and frustrated the core purpose of California’s dependency law.” (In re E.M. (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 467, 475 ; In re Kamelia S., supra, 82 Cal.App.4th at p. 1229 .) Our Supreme Court explained: “A party to an action cannot, with right or reason, ask the aid and assistance of a court in hearing his demands while he stands in an attitude of 3 contempt to legal orders and processes of the courts of this state.” (MacPherson v. MacPherson (1939) 13 Cal.2d 271, 277 .) The disentitlement doctrine applies not only when a parent disobe

2013By absconding with the children, the mother “effectively undermined and frustrated the core purpose of California’s dependency law.” (In re E.M. (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 467, 475 ; In re Kamelia S., supra, 82 Cal.App.4th at p. 1229 .) Our Supreme Court explained: “A party to an action cannot, with right or reason, ask the aid and assistance of a court in hearing his demands while he stands in an attitude of 3 contempt to legal orders and processes of the courts of this state.” (MacPherson v. MacPherson (1939) 13 Cal.2d 271, 277 .) The disentitlement doctrine applies not only when a parent disobe

2013By absconding with the children, the mother “effectively undermined and frustrated the core purpose of California’s dependency law.” (In re E.M. (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 467, 475 ; In re Kamelia S., supra, 82 Cal.App.4th at p. 1229 .) Our Supreme Court explained: “A party to an action cannot, with right or reason, ask the aid and assistance of a court in hearing his demands while he stands in an attitude of 3 contempt to legal orders and processes of the courts of this state.” (MacPherson v. MacPherson (1939) 13 Cal.2d 271, 277 .) The disentitlement doctrine applies not only when a parent disobe

1980In Reed v. High (1978) 254 Pa.Super.Ct. [ 385 A.2d 1384 ], the Pennsylvania court 17 noted that the meaning of “‘[ujnless required’ remains to be developed by the cases; ‘required’ is, however, a strong word, and would seem to impose a very heavy burden of proof on the kidnapper parent” (at pp. 1385-1386, fn. 1; italics added).

1980Of course, the court is not bound to decide according to their preference and may award custody consistent with its finding of the best interest of the children (see In re Marriage of Mehlmauer (1976) 60 Cal.App.3d 104 [ 131 Cal.Rptr. 325 ]; 6 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law (1980 Supp.) § 69, p. 136; 2 Markey, Cal. Family Law, § 22.80).

1980Of course, the court is not bound to decide according to their preference and may award custody consistent with its finding of the best interest of the children (see In re Marriage of Mehlmauer (1976) 60 Cal.App.3d 104 [ 131 Cal.Rptr. 325 ]; 6 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law (1980 Supp.) § 69, p. 136; 2 Markey, Cal. Family Law, § 22.80).

1905(Estate of Bell, 131 Cal. 1 , [ 63 Pac. 81, 668 ].) The minor children have no claim to any portion of the allowance thus made to her, nor is it held by her in trust for them.

1905(Estate of Bell, 131 Cal. 1 , [ 63 Pac. 81, 668 ].) The minor children have no claim to any portion of the allowance thus made to her, nor is it held by her in trust for them.