Case Summaries

Family Law

[05/06] In re Domestic Partnership of Ellis and Arriaga
Under the California Domestic Partner Rights and Responsibilities Act of 2003 and consistent with the rationale in Koebke v. Bernardo Heights Country Club, 36 Cal.4th 824 (2005), a person's reasonable, good faith belief that his or her domestic partnership was validly registered with the California Secretary of State entitles that person to the rights and responsibilities of a registered domestic partner, even if the registration never took place.

[05/01] In re Lesly G.
Denial of a petition for modification, as well as a juvenile court order terminating parental rights under Welf. and Inst. Code section 366.26, are reversed and remanded where the juvenile court failed to hold the required hearing on petitioner's section 388 petition for modification before proceeding to a section 366.26 hearing.

[04/29] In the Matter of M. S v. E. S.
In a proceeding wherein wife sought an upward modification of maintenance and child support in a written separation agreement, judgment that the parties were bound by the terms of the separation agreement is affirmed where the Family Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to entertain the spouse's application for increased spousal maintenance.

[04/25] State of California Dep't of Soc. Servs. v. Leavitt
In a case involving whether the California Department of Social Services (CDSS) complied with an order requiring it to provide for the review of all foster care cases open on or after March 3, 2003, for benefits eligibility under a prior case's construction of a statute determining eligibility for the Aid to Families with Dependent Children-Foster Care program, denial of motions to enforce the judgment is reversed in part insofar as the court failed to address a request to authorize discovery regarding the agencies' compliance. Grant of agencies' motion for relief from judgment as of the date of the implementation of the Deficit Reduction Act (DRA) is affirmed where the district court did not abuse its discretion by allowing the agencies to implement the DRA as Congress intended.

[04/23] State Dep't of Soc. Serv. v. Superior Court (D.P.)
The juvenile court has the authority to order a dependent child returned to the home of designated prospective adoptive parents when, after a hearing held to determine whether the removal of a child from the home of prospective adoptive parents is in the minors' best interest, the court is of the opinion that an emergency removal occurring some three months earlier was in the minors' best interests but events which occurred since the removal justify returning the minors to the designated prospective adoptive parents' home. Furthermore, section 361.4 of Welf. & Inst. Code does not limit the juvenile court's discretion to order a minor returned to prospective adoptive parents after a hearing held pursuant to section 366.26(n).

[04/22] Edwards v. Edwards
In a child support case considering the applicability of the statutory support guideline to a competent adult child who has moved away to college, the court of appeals concludes that where neither parent retains "primary physical responsibility" under Family Code section 4055 subdivision (b)(1)(D) of an adult child for any percentage of time, the guideline formula, by its terms, is inapplicable.

More...