5 California opinions name it 1 courts 2011–2025 4 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 |
|---|---|---|
Guardianship of Ann S.green2 sentences2025In making this determination, the court shall consider all factors relating to the best interest of the child, including, but not limited to, the nature and extent of the relationship between all of the following: “(A) The child and the birth parent. “(B) The child and the guardian, including family members of the guardian. “(C) The child and any siblings or half siblings.” Section 1516.5 “requires the court to consider ‘all factors relating to the best interest of the child,’ . . . includ[ing] the circumstances leading to guardianship, the parent’s efforts to maintain contact with the child, 2025It would be absurd for the court to conclude that any benefit from adoption would be sufficient, regardless of competing considerations. ‘Benefit’ in this context means that adoption would be the best alternative for the child, as is clear from the Legislature’s specification that ‘[i]n making this determination, the court shall consider all factors relating to the best interest of the child . . . .’” (Guardianship of Ann S. (2009) 45 Cal.4th 1110, 1128, fn.10 (Ann S.).) All factors relating to the child’s best interest “would include the circumstances leading to guardianship, the parent’s eff | 1 | 5 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In Re Noreen G.
green
2 sentences2022Un re Noreen G. (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 1359, 1383 .) The trial court’s findings are reviewed under the clear and convincing evidence standard. 2022Wn re Noreen G. (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 1359, 1383 .) The trial court’s findings are reviewed under the clear and convincing evidence standard. | 2 | 2022–2022 |
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.