The California Court of Appeal, Fourth District, holds that a juvenile court cannot assert jurisdiction under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300(e) over a child who has turned five by the time of the jurisdiction hearing, even if the severe physical abuse occurred when the child was under five.
The California Court of Appeal, First District, holds that a marital settlement provision awarding one spouse the home ‘and all debts thereon’ does not include an implied obligation to remove the other spouse from the mortgage — practitioners must draft that term explicitly.
The Fourth Department reversed the denial of a late-notice-of-claim application in a school bullying case, finding that the District acquired actual knowledge of the claim through its counselor’s involvement in related Family Court proceedings and that the mother’s preoccupation with those proceedings constituted a reasonable excuse for the delay.
The First District holds that a divorce settlement awarding one spouse the marital home ‘and all debts thereon’ does not implicitly require removing the other spouse from the mortgage, reinforcing that such obligations must be explicitly stated.
In a case of first impression, the Fourth District holds that section 300(e) juvenile dependency jurisdiction requires the child to be under five at the time of the hearing, not when the abuse occurred — reversing findings against a child who turned five before the hearing.
California Court of Appeal affirms $24.7 million jury verdict against a foster family agency, holding that an FFA’s duty of care requires liability where it knew or should have known of a foster parent’s risk of sexual abuse, applying the Rowland v. Christian factors to adopt a constructive knowledge standard.
The Eighth District affirmed permanent custody after the juvenile court denied a continuance for a mother who had missed four of five prior hearings, finding no due process violation.
In a 2-1 decision, the Eighth District reversed a permanent custody grant, finding the juvenile court abused its discretion by denying a continuance when CCDCFS filed an amended case plan just six days before the hearing.
The Eighth District affirmed permanent custody of four children where the mother persistently denied that her partner sexually abused her older daughter and failed to complete case-plan objectives.
The Eighth District affirmed a domestic-violence civil protection order including a firearms restriction, holding that repeated unauthorized home entries during parenting time constituted domestic violence.