Lozano v. Montoya Alvarez
The 1-year period contained in Article 12 of the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction is not subject to equitable tolling.
Wechsler v. Superior Court (Wechsler)
The trial court properly denied husband's motion to disqualify San Diego County Superior Court Commissioner Ratekin from presiding over the dissolution action between him and his former wife, where: 1) the commissioner's conduct of agreeing to officiate at former wife's counsel's wedding while post-judgment support matters were pending before the commissioner was not a disqualifying event; and 2) when a judge has no personal or social relationship with the attorney and the judge's only role at the wedding is that of an officiant, disclosure is required, but disqualification is not mandated absent additional facts.
In re Taylor J.
The trial court's order terminating reunification services for a mother and her 15-year-old daughter is reversed and remanded, where the trial court's finding that the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) provided adequate reunification services to the family is not supported by substantial evidence.
Nguyen v. Holder
In an appeal from the Board of Immigration Appeals' affirmation of an immigration judge's order of removal, the following question is certified to the New York Court of Appeals: Does section 5(3) of New York's Domestic Relations Law void as incestuous a marriage between an uncle and niece "of the half blood" (that is, where the husband is the half‐brother of the wife's mother)?
Burquet v. Brumbaugh
The trial court's issuance of a California Domestic Violence Protection Act (DVPA) restraining order is affirmed, where there was substantial evidence presented at trial to support the trial court's finding that defendant disturbed the peace of the plaintiff, an act of "abuse" under the DVPA.
In re Marriage of Boblitt
The trial court's postjudgment order relating to the division of the proceeds from the sale of a parcel of community real property, where the trial court added an issue to those that were scheduled to be heard less than one month before the hearing, is affirmed, where: 1) wife's due process claims fails because in a marital dissolution proceeding like this, once discovery closes before the initial date set for trial of the action, no provision of law operates to automatically reopen it upon or in connection with the filing of a postjudgment motion; and 2) because wife never moved to reopen discovery following the filing of the postjudgment motion on which the evidentiary hearing was set, she was not deprived of any discovery rights by the trial court's ruling relating to the scope of the issues to be heard.