First District Victories

Results: 1 - 10 of 180


February 2, 2017

Attorney: Mara Bernstein

Categories: Dependency   ICWA   Review Hearings   

[Published Decision – 9 Cal.App.5th 339] Father appealed from the juvenile court’s findings at the six-month review hearing. The Court of Appeal agreed stating father’s out-of-state location and lack of participation did not excuse the Department’s failure to provide reasonable services. In addition, the Department failed to make the required active efforts under the ICWA to prevent the breakup of the Indian family.


April 26, 2018

Attorney: Amanda Sherwood

Categories: Dependency   Petitions to Modify (Section 388)   

On appeal, mother argued that the juvenile court applied the incorrect evidentiary standard to her section 388 petition. Respondent conceded that the juvenile court erred.  The Court of Appeal remanded the matter stating that section 388 did not require the heightened burden of proof of clear and convincing evidence be applied to petitions to modify bypass orders based on section 361.5, subdivisions (b)(11) and (13).


November 25, 2020

Attorney: Carol Koenig

Categories: Dependency   Disposition   

Father appealed the juvenile court’s jurisdictional and dispositional findings removing his daughter from parental custody and denying him reunification services. The Court of Appeal agreed with father that he did not receive proper notice of the proceedings, the juvenile court erred by proceeding in his absence, and the error was not harmless.


July 31, 2020

Attorney: Seth Gorman

Categories: Dependency   Permanency Planning (Section 366.26)   

The Court of Appeal agreed with father that the juvenile court misconstrued the legal standards applicable to the beneficial parent-child relationship and, therefore, did not exercise its discretion in an informed way.


September 8, 2020

Attorney: S. Lynne Klein

Categories: Dependency   General   

[Published Decision – 54 Cal.App.5th 298] The Court of Appeal found that the juvenile court never provided father with notice of the procedure he should follow to establish that he was the minor’s father and protect his parental rights. This failure was prejudicial and the juvenile court’s orders were reversed.


September 30, 2020

Attorney: Jesse Rodriguez

Categories: Dependency   General   

The Court of Appeal agreed that substantial evidence did not support the juvenile court’s denial of appellant’s request for presumed father status. Despite the lack of a biological connection, the Court remanded the matter for the juvenile court to reconsider appellant’s request.


September 25, 2019

Attorney: Nathaniel Miller


The Court of Appeal found that insufficient evidence supported the juvenile court’s finding that the minor committed a battery against a police officer (PC sec. 242) or that he resisted arrest (PC sec. 148, subd. (a)(1)). As to the battery, the court found that the minor’s contact with the officer was incidental to his attempt to move away from the officer’s hand, and that the contact was neither willful nor harmful or offensive (two required elements of battery). As for the resisting arrest charge, the court found that the officer was not enforcing any disciplinary rules in his encounter with the minor, that the officer had only requested (not ordered) the minor to follow instructions, and that insufficient evidence supported that the minor knew or reasonably should have know that the officer was engaged in the performance of his duties when he grabbed the minor’s arm.


December 17, 2019

Attorney: Jeffrey Kross


In a case where appellant was convicted of three felonies (making criminal threats; stalking; and threatening a public official), the Court of Appeal found that his sentence for threatening a public official must be stayed under Penal Code section 654. The Court also remanded the case for the trial court to determine whether appellant’s punishment for multiple violations of the restraining order must also be stayed under section 654.


October 28, 2019

Attorney: David Polsky


The Court of Appeal remanded for resentencing to permit the trial court to exercise its discretion to strike the 5-year prior serious felony enhancement (PC sec. 667, subd. (a)(1)).


September 20, 2019

Attorney: Elizabeth Grayson


Although the Court of Appeal found no abuse of discretion in the juvenile court’s decision to impose an electronic search condition, it found the condition imposed swept too broadly, and so remand for the juvenile court to consider imposing a narrower search condition.

Results: 1 - 10 of 180