may consider factors in California

2025(Kimberly F., at p. 529.) “In considering whether the petitioner has made the requisite showing, the juvenile court may consider the entire factual and procedural history of the case. [Citation.] The court may consider factors such as the seriousness of the reason leading to the child's removal, the reason the problem was not resolved, the passage of time since the child’s removal, the relative strength of the bonds with the child, the nature of the change of circumstance, and the reason the change was not made sooner. [Citation.] In assessing the best interests of the child, ‘a primary consid

2013(Id. at p. 190.) In considering whether a petitioner has shown that the requested change is in the best interests of a dependent child, “the juvenile court may consider the entire factual and procedural history of the case. [Citation.] The court may consider factors such as the seriousness of the reason leading to the child‟s removal, the reason the problem was not resolved, the passage of time since the child‟s removal, the relative strength of the bonds with the child, the nature of the change of circumstance, and the reason the change was not made sooner. [Citation.] In assessing the best i

2020(In re Stephanie M., at p. 317; In re A.A. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 597, 611-612 ; In re Casey D. (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 38, 47 [“[t]he parent bears the burden of showing both a change of circumstance exists and that the proposed change is in the child’s best interests”]; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.570(e)(1), (h)(1).)6 “In considering whether the petitioner has made the requisite showing, the juvenile court may consider the entire factual and procedural history of the case. [Citation.] The court may consider factors such as . . . the passage of time since the child’s removal, the relative streng

2016(In re Aaliyah R. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 437, 446-447 .) In assessing the best interests of the child, “a primary consideration . . . is the goal of assuring stability and continuity.” (In re Stephanie M., supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 317 .) Liberally construing mother’s petition, the court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that mother had not made a prima facie case warranting a hearing, when her assertions were considered in the context of the entire case.

2023(See In re Varnell (2003) 30 Cal.4th 1132, 1142 (Varnell) [court’s factfinding that resulted in the denial of probation did not implicate Apprendi because the denial did not increase the penalty for defendant’s crime]; People v. Benitez (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 1274, 1278 [because eligibility for probation “results in a reduction rather than an increase in the sentence prescribed for his offenses,” judicial factfinding on the issue is not subject to the Apprendi rule]; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.414(c) [“[i]n determining the suitability of the defendant for probation, the court may consider fac

2023(See Haymond, supra, 139 S.Ct. at p. 2377 (plur. opn. of Gorsuch, J.) [parole and probation provide defendants with a “period of conditional liberty as an ‘act of grace,’ ” which does “not usually implicate the historic concerns of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments”]; In re Varnell (2003) 30 Cal.4th 1132, 1142 [judicial factfinding that resulted in denial of probation did not implicate Apprendi because the denial did not increase the penalty for defendant’s crime]; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.414(c) [“[i]n determining the 11 suitability of the defendant for probation, the court may consider facto

2023The object of the 2008 agreement: the relationship of the parties As plaintiff points out, the test for adequacy of consideration “is not whether the promisor received the highest price obtainable for his property, but whether the price he received is fair and reasonable under the circumstances,” and “in addition to the value of the property to be conveyed, the court may consider such factors as the relationship of the parties, their friendship, love, affection, and regard for each other, and the object to be obtained by the contract.” (Henderson v. Fisher (1965) 236 Cal.App.2d 468, 474 ; see

1965(Ornbaun v. Main, 198 Cal.App.2d 92, 97 [ 17 Cal.Rptr. 631 ]; O’Donnell v. Lutter, supra, p. 384 ; O’Hara v. Wattson, 172 Cal. 525, 528 [ 157 P. 608 ].) *475 In the instant action, the trial court made no specific finding as to adequacy of consideration except insofar as it found that “the services and expenses laid out by plaintiffs for Marion D.

2025(Kimberly F., at p. 529.) “In considering whether the petitioner has made the requisite showing, the juvenile court may consider the entire factual and procedural history of the case. [Citation.] The court may consider factors such as the seriousness of the reason leading to the child's removal, the reason the problem was not resolved, the passage of time since the child’s removal, the relative strength of the bonds with the child, the nature of the change of circumstance, and the reason the change was not made sooner. [Citation.] In assessing the best interests of the child, ‘a primary consid

2025(In re Zachary G. (1999) 77 Cal.App.4th 799 , 806–807.) “Whether [the petitioner] made a prima facie showing entitling [the petitioner] to a hearing depends on the facts alleged in [the] petition, as well as the facts established as without dispute by the court’s own file . . . .” (In re Angel B. (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 454, 461 .) “The court may consider factors such as the seriousness of the reason leading to the child’s removal, the reason the problem was not resolved, the passage of time since the child’s removal, the relative strength of the bonds with the child, the nature of the change of

2025(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.570(h)(1)(C).) In determining whether father carried his burden, “the court may consider the entire factual and procedural history of the case.” (In re Justice P. (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 181, 189 .) The court may consider factors such as: “(1) the seriousness of the problem which led to the dependency, and the reason for any continuation of that problem; (2) the strength of relative bonds between the dependent children to both parent and caretakers; and (3) the degree to which the problem may be easily removed or ameliorated, and the degree to which it actually has

2016(In re Justice P. (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 181, 188-189 .) The asserted change in circumstances “must be of such significant nature that it requires a setting aside or modification of the challenged order.” (In re A.A. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 597, 612 .) In determining whether a change in placement is warranted, the court may consider factors such as the seriousness of the reason leading to the child’s removal, the reason the problem was not resolved, the passage of time since the child’s removal, the relative strength of the bonds with the child, the nature of the change of circumstance, and the

2025(Kimberly F., at p. 529.) “In considering whether the petitioner has made the requisite showing, the juvenile court may consider the entire factual and procedural history of the case. [Citation.] The court may consider factors such as the seriousness of the reason leading to the child's removal, the reason the problem was not resolved, the passage of time since the child’s removal, the relative strength of the bonds with the child, the nature of the change of circumstance, and the reason the change was not made sooner. [Citation.] In assessing the best interests of the child, ‘a primary consid

2025(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.570(h)(1)(C).) In determining whether father carried his burden, “the court may consider the entire factual and procedural history of the case.” (In re Justice P. (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 181, 189 .) The court may consider factors such as: “(1) the seriousness of the problem which led to the dependency, and the reason for any continuation of that problem; (2) the strength of relative bonds between the dependent children to both parent and caretakers; and (3) the degree to which the problem may be easily removed or ameliorated, and the degree to which it actually has

2025(In re Zachary G. (1999) 77 Cal.App.4th 799 , 806–807.) “Whether [the petitioner] made a prima facie showing entitling [the petitioner] to a hearing depends on the facts alleged in [the] petition, as well as the facts established as without dispute by the court’s own file . . . .” (In re Angel B. (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 454, 461 .) “The court may consider factors such as the seriousness of the reason leading to the child’s removal, the reason the problem was not resolved, the passage of time since the child’s removal, the relative strength of the bonds with the child, the nature of the change of

2021(In re G.B. (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 1147, 1158 ; In re Angel B. (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 454, 460 (Angel B.).) A proper exercise of discretion is “ ‘not a capricious or arbitrary discretion, but an impartial discretion, guided and controlled in its exercise by fixed legal principles. . . . to be exercised in conformity with the spirit of the law, and in a manner to subserve and not to impede or defeat the ends of substantial justice.’ [Citations.]” (In re Robert L. (1993) 21 Cal.App.4th 1057, 1066 .) Exercises of discretion must be “ ‘grounded in reasoned judgment and guided 7 by legal principles

2023The object of the 2008 agreement: the relationship of the parties As plaintiff points out, the test for adequacy of consideration “is not whether the promisor received the highest price obtainable for his property, but whether the price he received is fair and reasonable under the circumstances,” and “in addition to the value of the property to be conveyed, the court may consider such factors as the relationship of the parties, their friendship, love, affection, and regard for each other, and the object to be obtained by the contract.” (Henderson v. Fisher (1965) 236 Cal.App.2d 468, 474 ; see

2013(See Whorton v. Dillingham (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 447, 454 [allegations that the plaintiff provided the defendant with services as a chauffeur, bodyguard, secretary and business partner held adequate consideration]; Henderson v. Fisher (1965) 236 Cal.App.2d 468, 474 [in testing the adequacy of consideration, “the court may consider such factors as the relationship of the parties, their friendship, love, affection, and regard for each other, and the object to be obtained by the contract”].) Here, the question was not whether appellant alleged adequate consideration, but rather, whether he allege

2016(People v. Superior Court (Alvarez) (1997) 14 Cal.4th 968, 974 .) When considering a motion to reduce a wobbler crime to a misdemeanor, the court may consider factors relevant to sentencing decisions such as " 'the nature and circumstances of the offense, the defendant's appreciation of and attitude toward the offense, or his traits of character as evidenced by his behavior and demeanor at the trial.' " (Id. at p. 978.) Where appropriate, the court may also consider general objectives of sentencing such as those set forth in rule 4.410 of the California Rules of Court, which include, among oth

2016(People v. Superior Court (Alvarez) (1997) 14 Cal.4th 968, 974 (Alvarez).) When considering a motion to reduce a wobbler crime to a misdemeanor, the court may consider factors relevant to sentencing 14 decisions such as " 'the nature and circumstances of the offense, the defendant's appreciation of and attitude toward the offense, or his traits of character as evidenced by his behavior and demeanor at the trial.' " (Id. at p. 978.) Where appropriate, the court may also consider general objectives of sentencing such as those set forth in rule 4.410 of the California Rules of Court, which includ

2026The court may consider factors in aggravation and mitigation, whether or not the factors have been stipulated to by the defendant or found true beyond a reasonable doubt at trial by a jury or the judge in a court trial.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.420(d).) Defendant contends that once the court finds psychological, physical, or childhood trauma (§ 1170, subd. (b)(6)(A)) was a contributing factor in the commitment offense, the lower term becomes the “statutory maximum” as defined in Blakely v. Washington (2004) 542 U.S. 296, 303-304 (Blakely)—i.e., the “maximum sentence a judge may impose 8 s

2025(See People v. Price (1991) 1 Cal.4th 324, 492 [“ ‘When a trial court has given both proper and improper reasons for a sentence choice, a reviewing court will set aside the sentence only if it is reasonably probable that the trial court would have chosen a lesser sentence had it known that some of its reasons were improper.’ ”], cited with approval in People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730 , 760, fn. 14 and In re F.M. (2023) 14 Cal.5th 701 , 715; see Sperling, supra, 12 Cal.App.5th at p. 1104 [“ ‘In order to determine whether error by the trial court in relying upon improper factors in aggravat

2025(See People v. Price (1991) 1 Cal.4th 324, 492 [“ ‘When a trial court has given both proper and improper reasons for a sentence choice, a reviewing court will set aside the sentence only if it is reasonably probable that the trial court would have chosen a lesser sentence had it known that some of its reasons were improper.’ ”], cited with approval in People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730 , 760, fn. 14 and In re F.M. (2023) 14 Cal.5th 701 , 715; see Sperling, supra, 12 Cal.App.5th at p. 1104 [“ ‘In order to determine whether error by the trial court in relying upon improper factors in aggravat

2025(See In re J.C. (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 503, 526-527 [criticizing Kimberly F. to the extent it does not take into account this shift in focus].) “A court hearing a motion for change of placement at this stage of the proceedings must recognize this shift 22 of focus in determining the ultimate question before it, that is, the best interests of the child.” (In re Stephanie M., supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 317 .) At this stage, there is a rebuttable presumption that continued placement is in the best interests of the child.