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 2006–2015 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 |
|---|---|---|
Nolan v. City of Anaheimyellow2 sentences2008(E.g., Cal. Rules of Court, former rule 1413(a), (h) [renumbered as rule 5.635(h)].) As the case before us does not involve a deprivation of the right to a determination of biological paternity, Baby Boy V. is not authority for granting Jorge’s section 388 petition. “ ‘A decision, of course, does not stand for a proposition not considered by the court.’ (Nolan v. City of Anaheim (2004) 33 Cal.4th 335, 343 [ 14 Cal.Rptr.3d 857 , 92 P.3d 350 ].)” (Flatley v. Mauro (2006) 39 Cal.4th 299, 320 [ 46 Cal.Rptr.3d 606 , 139 P.3d 2 ].) The conclusion in Baby Boy V. that Jesus was entitled to presumed fa 2008(E.g., Cal. Rules of Court, former rule 1413(a), (h) [renumbered as rule 5.635(h)].) As the case before us does not involve a deprivation of the right to a determination of biological paternity, Baby Boy V. is not authority for granting Jorge’s section 388 petition. “ ‘A decision, of course, does not stand for a proposition not considered by the court.’ (Nolan v. City of Anaheim (2004) 33 Cal.4th 335, 343 [ 14 Cal.Rptr.3d 857 , 92 P.3d 350 ].)” (Flatley v. Mauro (2006) 39 Cal.4th 299, 320 [ 46 Cal.Rptr.3d 606 , 139 P.3d 2 ].) The conclusion in Baby Boy V. that Jesus was entitled to presumed fa | 2 | 2 |
Flatley v. Maurogreen2 sentences2008(E.g., Cal. Rules of Court, former rule 1413(a), (h) [renumbered as rule 5.635(h)].) As the case before us does not involve a deprivation of the right to a determination of biological paternity, Baby Boy V. is not authority for granting Jorge’s section 388 petition. “ ‘A decision, of course, does not stand for a proposition not considered by the court.’ (Nolan v. City of Anaheim (2004) 33 Cal.4th 335, 343 [ 14 Cal.Rptr.3d 857 , 92 P.3d 350 ].)” (Flatley v. Mauro (2006) 39 Cal.4th 299, 320 [ 46 Cal.Rptr.3d 606 , 139 P.3d 2 ].) The conclusion in Baby Boy V. that Jesus was entitled to presumed fa 2008(E.g., Cal. Rules of Court, former rule 1413(a), (h) [renumbered as rule 5.635(h)].) As the case before us does not involve a deprivation of the right to a determination of biological paternity, Baby Boy V. is not authority for granting Jorge’s section 388 petition. “ ‘A decision, of course, does not stand for a proposition not considered by the court.’ (Nolan v. City of Anaheim (2004) 33 Cal.4th 335, 343 [ 14 Cal.Rptr.3d 857 , 92 P.3d 350 ].)” (Flatley v. Mauro (2006) 39 Cal.4th 299, 320 [ 46 Cal.Rptr.3d 606 , 139 P.3d 2 ].) The conclusion in Baby Boy V. that Jesus was entitled to presumed fa | 1 | 2 |
In Re Paul H.green2 sentences2008(In re Paul H. (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 753, 760-762 [ 5 Cal.Rptr.3d 1 ].) The dependency court has a duty to determine the parentage of a child when a man appears at a hearing requesting a paternity finding. 2008(In re Paul H. (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 753, 760-762 [ 5 Cal.Rptr.3d 1 ].) The dependency court has a duty to determine the parentage of a child when a man appears at a hearing requesting a paternity finding. | 1 | 2 |
County of San Diego v. Bouchardgreen2 sentences2006Rule 1413(h) (as it read in 2005 at the time of the November 2005 hearings) provided, as relevant: “If a man appears at a hearing in a dependency matter, ... or requests a finding of paternity on Form JV-505 in a dependency matter . . . , the court shall determine whether or not he is the biological father of the child.” (Italics added.) This is a mandatory, not a discretionary, rule. (§ 15; County of San Diego v. Bouchard (1987) 195 Cal.App.3d 34, 39 [ 240 Cal.Rptr. 391 ] [the word “shall” is mandatory].) Jesus’s request for a paternity test should have been granted. 2006Rule 1413(h) (as it read in 2005 at the time of the November 2005 hearings) provided, as relevant: “If a man appears at a hearing in a dependency matter, ... or requests a finding of paternity on Form JV-505 in a dependency matter . . . , the court shall determine whether or not he is the biological father of the child.” (Italics added.) This is a mandatory, not a discretionary, rule. (§ 15; County of San Diego v. Bouchard (1987) 195 Cal.App.3d 34, 39 [ 240 Cal.Rptr. 391 ] [the word “shall” is mandatory].) Jesus’s request for a paternity test should have been granted. | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In Re Vincent M.
green
1 sentence2015Moreover, we note that a “dependency court has a duty to determine the parentage of a child when a man appears at a hearing requesting a paternity finding. [Citation.]” (In re Vincent M. (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 943, 959 .) In light of these considerations, we turn to the juvenile court’s denial of a brief continuance of the parentage hearing. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Los Angeles County Department of Children & Family Services v. Jesus H.
neutral
1 sentence2008The court held that under Kelsey S., Jesus was a presumed father and entitled to reunification services if, on remand, the dependency court finds he came forward promptly, paternity testing revealed he is the biological father, and he is not unfit. ( Id. at pp. 1117-1119, 45 Cal.Rptr.3d 198 .) We agree with the decision in Baby Boy V. to the extent the court reversed the order denying paternity testing. *768 Jesus was an alleged father who was entitled to an opportunity to establish he is the biological father. ( In re Paul H. (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 753, 760-762 , 5 Cal. Rptr.3d 1 .) The depen | 1 | 2008–2008 |
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.