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.
5 California opinions name it 1 courts 2013–2026 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
San Diego County Health & Human Services Agency v. B.T.green2 sentences2026(See also, In re Nickolas T. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 1492, 1504-1505 ; In re C.M., supra, 232 Cal.App.4th at p. 1401 .) The court in In re Nickolas T., supra, 217 Cal.App.4th at page 1505 , added that “section 361, subdivision (c)(1) states the court may remove the ‘offending parent’ from the home and allow the ‘nonoffending parent’ to retain physical custody on a showing that he or she can protect the child from future harm. 2026(See also, In re Nickolas T. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 1492, 1504-1505 ; In re C.M., supra, 232 Cal.App.4th at p. 1401 .) The court in In re Nickolas T., supra, 217 Cal.App.4th at page 1505 , added that “section 361, subdivision (c)(1) states the court may remove the ‘offending parent’ from the home and allow the ‘nonoffending parent’ to retain physical custody on a showing that he or she can protect the child from future harm. | 2 | 3 |
In Re Karla C.green2 sentences2014(In re John M. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 410, 420-421 [ 158 Cal.Rptr.3d 670 ].) Although the term “nonoffending” does not appear in the text of section 361.2, subdivision (a), some courts have recognized “an implicit nonoffending requirement in section 361.2.” (In re John M., supra, 217 Cal.App.4th at p. 421 et seq.; see In re Karla C. (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 1236, 1245 [ 113 Cal.Rptr.3d 163 ] [under § 361.2, “[i]f there is no showing of detriment, the court must order the [department] to temporarily place the child with the nonoffending noncustodial parent”].) Other courts have found placement pu 2014(In re John M. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 410, 420-421 [ 158 Cal.Rptr.3d 670 ].) Although the term “nonoffending” does not appear in the text of section 361.2, subdivision (a), some courts have recognized “an implicit nonoffending requirement in section 361.2.” (In re John M., supra, 217 Cal.App.4th at p. 421 et seq.; see In re Karla C. (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 1236, 1245 [ 113 Cal.Rptr.3d 163 ] [under § 361.2, “[i]f there is no showing of detriment, the court must order the [department] to temporarily place the child with the nonoffending noncustodial parent”].) Other courts have found placement pu | 2 | 2 |
Los Angeles County Department of Children & Family Services v. John M.red2 sentences2014(In re John M. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 410, 420-421 [ 158 Cal.Rptr.3d 670 ].) Although the term “nonoffending” does not appear in the text of section 361.2, subdivision (a), some courts have recognized “an implicit nonoffending requirement in section 361.2.” (In re John M., supra, 217 Cal.App.4th at p. 421 et seq.; see In re Karla C. (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 1236, 1245 [ 113 Cal.Rptr.3d 163 ] [under § 361.2, “[i]f there is no showing of detriment, the court must order the [department] to temporarily place the child with the nonoffending noncustodial parent”].) Other courts have found placement pu 2014(In re John M. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 410, 420-421 [ 158 Cal.Rptr.3d 670 ].) Although the term “nonoffending” does not appear in the text of section 361.2, subdivision (a), some courts have recognized “an implicit nonoffending requirement in section 361.2.” (In re John M., supra, 217 Cal.App.4th at p. 421 et seq.; see In re Karla C. (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 1236, 1245 [ 113 Cal.Rptr.3d 163 ] [under § 361.2, “[i]f there is no showing of detriment, the court must order the [department] to temporarily place the child with the nonoffending noncustodial parent”].) Other courts have found placement pu | 1 | 2 |
In Re Adrianna P.green2 sentences2014(See, e.g., In re Nicholas T. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 1492, 1504 [ 159 Cal.Rptr.3d 521 ] [§ 361.2, subd. (a) does not exclude from consideration for placement a noncustodial parent with a history of prior involvement with child dependency proceedings]; In re V.F. (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 962, 966 [ 69 Cal.Rptr.3d 159 ] [“section 361.2 does not distinguish between an offending and nonoffending parent . . .”], superseded by statute on other grounds, as stated in In re Adrianna P. (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 44, 57-58 [ 81 Cal.Rptr.3d 918 ].) But even assuming that section 361.2, subdivision (a) does not 2014(See, e.g., In re Nicholas T. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 1492, 1504 [ 159 Cal.Rptr.3d 521 ] [§ 361.2, subd. (a) does not exclude from consideration for placement a noncustodial parent with a history of prior involvement with child dependency proceedings]; In re V.F. (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 962, 966 [ 69 Cal.Rptr.3d 159 ] [“section 361.2 does not distinguish between an offending and nonoffending parent . . .”], superseded by statute on other grounds, as stated in In re Adrianna P. (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 44, 57-58 [ 81 Cal.Rptr.3d 918 ].) But even assuming that section 361.2, subdivision (a) does not | 1 | 1 |
In Re Vfyellow2 sentences2014(See, e.g., In re Nicholas T. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 1492, 1504 [ 159 Cal.Rptr.3d 521 ] [§ 361.2, subd. (a) does not exclude from consideration for placement a noncustodial parent with a history of prior involvement with child dependency proceedings]; In re V.F. (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 962, 966 [ 69 Cal.Rptr.3d 159 ] [“section 361.2 does not distinguish between an offending and nonoffending parent . . .”], superseded by statute on other grounds, as stated in In re Adrianna P. (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 44, 57-58 [ 81 Cal.Rptr.3d 918 ].) But even assuming that section 361.2, subdivision (a) does not 2014(See, e.g., In re Nicholas T. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 1492, 1504 [ 159 Cal.Rptr.3d 521 ] [§ 361.2, subd. (a) does not exclude from consideration for placement a noncustodial parent with a history of prior involvement with child dependency proceedings]; In re V.F. (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 962, 966 [ 69 Cal.Rptr.3d 159 ] [“section 361.2 does not distinguish between an offending and nonoffending parent . . .”], superseded by statute on other grounds, as stated in In re Adrianna P. (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 44, 57-58 [ 81 Cal.Rptr.3d 918 ].) But even assuming that section 361.2, subdivision (a) does not | 1 | 1 |
Alameda County Social Services Agency v. J.W.green1 sentence2014(In re I.A., supra, at p. 1494.) 7 offending. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Los Angeles County Department of Children & Family Services v. Christopher M.
green
2 sentences2026Rather, the party opposing placement with a nonoffending parent has the burden to show by clear and convincing evidence that the child will be harmed if the nonoffending parent is given custody. [Citation.]” (Id. at p. 1402.) “We review the juvenile court’s finding that [the child] would not suffer detriment for substantial evidence.” (In re Liam L. (2015) 240 Cal.App.4th 1068, 1087 .) 17 The court in In re Christopher M., supra, 228 Cal.App.4th at page 1317 , noted that the term, “nonoffending,” does not appear in the text of section 361.2, subdivision (a), but some courts nevertheless have r 2021(See In re Christopher M., supra, 228 Cal.App.4th at p. 1317 ; cf. Nickolas T., supra, 217 Cal.App.4th at p. 1506 [rejecting contention that “a parent must be both ‘noncustodial’ and nonoffending’ to be considered for placement under section 361.2”].) We do not read a requirement into section 361.2, subdivision (a), that the parent be nonoffending, but in any event, “a jurisdictional finding based on conduct of a noncustodial parent would unquestionably be a consideration in assessing detriment under section 361.2, subdivision (a).” (Christopher, at p. 1317.) 22 domestic violence against Rocio | 2 | 2021–2026 |
Los Angeles County Department of Children & Family Services v. Robert M.
green
2 sentences2026(See also, In re Nickolas T. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 1492, 1504-1505 ; In re C.M., supra, 232 Cal.App.4th at p. 1401 .) The court in In re Nickolas T., supra, 217 Cal.App.4th at page 1505 , added that “section 361, subdivision (c)(1) states the court may remove the ‘offending parent’ from the home and allow the ‘nonoffending parent’ to retain physical custody on a showing that he or she can protect the child from future harm. 2026(See also, In re Nickolas T. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 1492, 1504-1505 ; In re C.M., supra, 232 Cal.App.4th at p. 1401 .) The court in In re Nickolas T., supra, 217 Cal.App.4th at page 1505 , added that “section 361, subdivision (c)(1) states the court may remove the ‘offending parent’ from the home and allow the ‘nonoffending parent’ to retain physical custody on a showing that he or she can protect the child from future harm. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
San Diego County Health & Human Services Agency v. Christine L.
green
1 sentence2026Rather, the party opposing placement with a nonoffending parent has the burden to show by clear and convincing evidence that the child will be harmed if the nonoffending parent is given custody. [Citation.]” (Id. at p. 1402.) “We review the juvenile court’s finding that [the child] would not suffer detriment for substantial evidence.” (In re Liam L. (2015) 240 Cal.App.4th 1068, 1087 .) 17 The court in In re Christopher M., supra, 228 Cal.App.4th at page 1317 , noted that the term, “nonoffending,” does not appear in the text of section 361.2, subdivision (a), but some courts nevertheless have r | 1 | 2026–2026 |
In Re Marquis D.
green
1 sentence2013As explained in In re Marquis D., “applying a clear and convincing standard of proof to remove custody from the custodial parent while denying placement with the noncustodial parent based on a preponderance of the evidence would *425 lead to the anomalous result that a parent who had no connection with the circumstances that brought the child within the jurisdiction of the court could have his or her rights terminated upon a lesser showing than the parent who created those circumstances.” ( 38 Cal.App.4th at p. 1829 , italics added.) In re Marquis D. likewise implicitly recognizes the nonoffen | 1 | 2013–2013 |