Justia Juvenile Law Opinion Summaries

In this case, the Alameda County Social Services Agency removed an eight-year-old girl, L., from her mother, L.W., after the mother was hospitalized due to a mental health crisis. L. had been living with her mother, stepfather, maternal grandmother, and siblings. The family had recently moved to a homeless shelter. When the mother left the shelter and did not return, the shelter called the police, and L. was taken into protective custody. The mother later contacted the Agency, explaining she had a mental health breakdown and was hospitalized. She had bipolar disorder and schizophrenia but had resumed taking her medication and was receiving psychiatric care.The juvenile court found that the mother’s mental health issues and the lack of a safe caregiver justified dependency jurisdiction under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (b)(1) and (g). The court ordered L. to be placed with her biological father and terminated dependency jurisdiction. The mother appealed, arguing that the evidence did not support the court’s findings.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Five, reviewed the case. The court found no evidence that L. was left without a safe caregiver, as she was with her grandmother at the shelter. The court also found that the mother’s mental health was stable, and she was receiving treatment. There was no substantial evidence that the mother’s mental illness or purported substance abuse placed L. at substantial risk of physical harm or illness. The court concluded that the juvenile court erred in exercising jurisdiction under section 300, subdivisions (b)(1) and (g).The Court of Appeal reversed the juvenile court’s jurisdictional order and vacated the disposition order and all subsequent orders as moot. View "In re L.W." on Justia Law

In this case, the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) became involved with a family after law enforcement discovered child pornography in the parents' home. Both parents admitted to possessing child pornography, and the mother admitted to posting inappropriate images of their daughter, M.V., online. M.V. was subsequently placed with her paternal grandparents, and the juvenile court sustained allegations of sexual exploitation against both parents, declaring M.V. a dependent child and removing her from her parents' custody. The parents received reunification services until November 2020, and in December 2021, the juvenile court terminated their parental rights. However, this order was vacated on appeal, and the case was remanded for a supplemental bonding study and a new permanency planning hearing.On remand, a new expert conducted a bonding study, and the permanency planning hearing took place in June 2024. The court reviewed extensive documentary evidence, including reports on M.V.'s well-being, her relationship with her parents and grandparents, and her expressed wishes to be adopted by her grandparents. The expert, Dr. Gonzalez, concluded that M.V. had a secure attachment to both parents and that terminating the parental relationship could be detrimental to her. However, the court found that the parents had not proven the beneficial parental relationship exception, noting that the expert's opinions were based more on general psychological principles than on the specific facts of the case.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Eight, reviewed the case and affirmed the juvenile court's order terminating parental rights. The appellate court found that the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in rejecting the expert's opinions and that the evidence did not compel a finding in favor of the parents. The court also addressed and dismissed allegations of judicial bias and due process violations raised by the parents. View "In re M.V." on Justia Law

D.F. (father) appealed the juvenile court's orders appointing a guardian for his son, J.F., and terminating jurisdiction under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. He argued that the court and the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (the Department) failed to meet their initial inquiry duties under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) and related California statutes (Cal-ICWA).The juvenile court had appointed a guardian for J.F. and terminated its jurisdiction. Father sought a conditional reversal of the guardianship order and a remand to ensure compliance with ICWA and Cal-ICWA. No respondent's brief was filed, but father, the child's counsel, and the Department filed a joint stipulation for conditional affirmance of the guardianship, limited reversal of the termination of jurisdiction, and remand for further inquiry.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Five, reviewed the case. The court found that the Department failed to contact maternal relatives to inquire about the child's potential Indian ancestry, constituting reversible error. However, the court disagreed with the need to contact the paternal great-aunt, as she is not considered an "extended family member" under ICWA.The court conditionally affirmed the guardianship order but conditionally reversed the order terminating dependency jurisdiction. The case was remanded to the juvenile court with instructions to order the Department to interview the maternal grandmother and aunt about the child's Indian ancestry and report the findings. If no further inquiry or notice to tribes is necessary, the termination order will be reinstated. If additional inquiry or notice is required, the court must ensure compliance with ICWA and Cal-ICWA. View "In re J.F." on Justia Law

J.B. (Minor) was placed with A.R. (De Facto Parent) for nearly two years after being removed from B.B. (Mother) and J.S. (Father). Parents filed petitions under Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 seeking additional reunification services and increased visitation. The trial court granted these petitions but did not remove Minor from De Facto Parent's care. De Facto Parent appealed, arguing that the juvenile court should not have granted additional reunification services as Parents failed to show changed circumstances and that it was not in Minor’s best interest.The Superior Court of Riverside County granted the section 388 petitions, providing Parents with six months of reunification services and increased visitation. The court noted that Minor would remain with De Facto Parent for the time being, with the goal of eventually returning Minor to Parents. The section 366.26 hearing, which would address the termination of parental rights and adoption, was vacated.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two, reviewed the case. The court agreed with the Riverside County Department of Public Social Services that De Facto Parent did not have standing to appeal the grant of the section 388 petitions. The court noted that as a de facto parent, A.R. did not have the right to reunification services, visitation, custody, or placement of Minor. The appeal was dismissed for lack of standing. View "In re J.B." on Justia Law

Defendant Benny Townes was convicted of multiple sexual offenses against his biological daughters, Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2. Jane Doe 1, who was 16 years old, was raped and impregnated by the defendant. Jane Doe 2, who was 13 and 14 years old at the time, was raped, sodomized, and subjected to lewd acts by the defendant. The defendant admitted to having sexual intercourse with Jane Doe 1 but argued that it was consensual and not against her will.The Superior Court of Riverside County found the defendant guilty on all counts, including forcible rape, incest, lewd acts with a minor, and sodomy. The court sentenced him to 150 years to life in prison. The defendant appealed, contending that there was insufficient evidence to support the finding that he raped Jane Doe 1 by means of force or duress, and therefore, his convictions on counts 1 and 2 should be reversed. He also argued that the multiple victim enhancement allegations should be reversed if counts 1 and 2 were overturned.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the case and affirmed the judgment. The court held that substantial evidence supported the finding of duress, which can be purely psychological. The defendant had instilled in Jane Doe 1 the belief that he was the son of God and that disobeying him would result in divine retribution. This psychological coercion was sufficient to constitute duress under Penal Code section 261, subdivisions (a)(2) and (b)(1). The court concluded that the threat of divine retribution, as taught by the defendant, was enough to uphold the convictions for forcible rape. View "People v. Townes" on Justia Law

Rene V., a minor, was removed from the custody of his legal guardian, Dora V., by the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) due to allegations of abuse and neglect. Dora was appointed as Rene's legal guardian by the juvenile court. After Rene's removal, the juvenile court ordered family reunification services for Dora, including visitation. However, Rene refused to participate in overnight visits and eventually refused all visitation with Dora.The juvenile court sustained the petition for Rene's removal and provided Dora with reunification services. At the 18-month review hearing, the court terminated Dora's reunification services and set a selection and implementation hearing under section 366.26. Dora filed a petition for writ of mandate, arguing that the juvenile court erred by allowing Rene to refuse visits and that no substantial evidence supported the finding that she received reasonable reunification services.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court noted that different statutory procedures apply to legal guardians appointed by the juvenile court compared to those appointed under the Probate Code. Legal guardians appointed by the juvenile court are not entitled to a presumption of reunification and may receive reunification services at the court's discretion if it is in the child's best interest.The Court of Appeal held that Dora, as a legal guardian appointed by the juvenile court, was not entitled to reunification services as a matter of right. The court found that the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in denying additional reunification services, given Rene's refusal to visit Dora and his expressed desire to remain with his current caregivers. The petition for writ of mandate was denied. View "Dora V. v. Super. Ct." on Justia Law

In January 2008, Ignacio Ruiz, Jr., participated in an attack on rival gang members, resulting in one death. Ruiz, who was 16 at the time, was found guilty of first-degree murder, attempted murder, and street terrorism, with several gang and firearm enhancements. In August 2010, he was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole for the murder charge, a consecutive life term with the possibility of parole for attempted murder, and a consecutive 25-year term for the firearm enhancement. Ruiz was resentenced in 2016, receiving nearly the same sentence.Ruiz filed a petition for resentencing in March 2023 under section 1170, subdivision (d), which allows individuals sentenced to life without parole for crimes committed as minors to petition for resentencing after 15 years of incarceration. The trial court denied the petition, calculating Ruiz's incarceration period from his sentencing date in August 2010, and found he had not been incarcerated for 15 years.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court agreed with Ruiz's argument that his incarceration period began in January 2008 when he was taken into custody for the charges, not from his sentencing date. The court found that Ruiz had been incarcerated for over 15 years by the time he filed the petition. The court reversed the trial court's order and remanded the case for reconsideration of the petition, clarifying that the period of incarceration for purposes of section 1170, subdivision (d)(1)(A), begins when the individual is placed in custody, not when they are sentenced. View "People v. Ruiz" on Justia Law

A minor, V., was removed from her mother's care at birth due to the mother's drug abuse. V. and her half-brother, N., were initially placed together with a relative, but N. was later moved to his non-offending father's custody. V. was placed with her aunt, who became her legal guardian in 2019. N. was eventually returned to their mother's custody. The aunt sought to adopt V. in 2022, but the mother opposed the termination of her parental rights, citing the parental relationship exception to adoption.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County found that the mother did not meet her burden to demonstrate the parental relationship exception. However, the court, without input from the parties, held that adoption would not be in V.'s best interest under the sibling relationship exception, and selected legal guardianship as the permanent plan for V. Both the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) and V. appealed this decision.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court held that the juvenile court abused its discretion by applying the wrong legal standards and by relieving the mother of her burden to prove that an exception to adoption applied. The appellate court found that substantial evidence did not support the juvenile court's finding that the sibling relationship exception applied. The appellate court reversed the juvenile court's orders and instructed the juvenile court to enter a new order stating that there are no exceptions to adoption and to select adoption as the permanent plan for V. View "In re V.S." on Justia Law

Elizabeth T. was taking her three children to see their father when she fell on a bus after consuming alcohol. An anonymous caller reported her to the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS), alleging she was intoxicated and her children were neglected. Elizabeth denied being heavily intoxicated and claimed her children were well cared for. DCFS filed a petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b), alleging Elizabeth's substance abuse posed a risk to her children.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County sustained the petition, citing a prior sustained allegation of substance abuse from 2018. Elizabeth appealed, arguing that one incident of alcohol abuse did not support the finding that she posed a risk to her children at the time of the jurisdiction hearing.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court found that the evidence of the single incident, along with the four-year-old allegation, did not support the finding that Elizabeth's conduct created a substantial risk of serious physical harm or illness to her children. The court noted that Elizabeth had cooperated with DCFS, voluntarily tested for drugs and alcohol, and agreed to participate in services. The court also highlighted that Elizabeth's children were healthy, well cared for, and showed no signs of abuse or neglect.The Court of Appeal concluded that substantial evidence did not support the juvenile court's jurisdiction findings under section 300, subdivision (b)(1)(A) or (b)(1)(D). The court reversed the juvenile court's jurisdiction findings and disposition orders. View "In re Gilberto G." on Justia Law

In 2018 and 2019, the appellant, a minor, committed a series of crimes, including seven street robberies, two burglaries, an attempted robbery resulting in murder, and the sexual assault of a 14-year-old girl. The appellant was 16 and 17 years old at the time of these offenses. The People filed an 18-count petition against the appellant, including charges of murder, robbery, burglary, and sexual assault, and sought to transfer the appellant to adult criminal court.The juvenile court held a transfer hearing and considered extensive evidence, including the appellant's family and social history, conduct in custody, and expert testimony. The court found that the appellant was not amenable to rehabilitation within the juvenile system's timeframe and ordered the transfer to adult criminal court. The court's decision was based on the severity and sophistication of the crimes, the appellant's delinquent history, and the lack of sufficient time for rehabilitation before the juvenile court's jurisdiction expired.The appellant appealed the transfer order, arguing that the juvenile court abused its discretion and that the evidence did not support the transfer. The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, reviewed the case and upheld the juvenile court's decision. The appellate court found that the juvenile court had properly considered the statutory criteria for transfer and that substantial evidence supported the finding that the appellant was not amenable to rehabilitation within the juvenile system. The order transferring the appellant to adult criminal court was affirmed. View "People v. J.S." on Justia Law