In re X.Z.
The juvenile court's order terminating Mother's parental rights over her infant daughter and an order terminating her reunification services are affirmed, where: 1) orders terminating reunification services are ordinarily reviewable solely by way of writ; 2) Mother received sufficient notice of the writ requirement to preclude her from raising issues pertaining to the reunification termination order at this late date; and 3) in any event, she raises no issues with respect to the order that require reversal.
In re Luke H
The juvenile court's order denying a petition for an order compelling petitioner's mother to make his non-dependent five-year-old sister available for weekly visitation is affirmed, where: 1) the juvenile court did not have jurisdiction to grant petitioner's modification petition for visitation with a non-dependent sibling; 2) petitioner did not have a constitutional right to visitation with his non-dependent sibling; and 3) petitioner has forfeited his argument that there was no evidentiary hearing.
In re Marriage of Bianco
The trial court's orders jointly and severally sanctioning wife's attorney $43,000 under rule 2.30(b) of the California Rules of Court for violating the California State Bar Rules of Professional Conduct by negligently hiring an attorney ineligible to practice law to assist her in representing wife in a dissolution trial, are reversed, where rule 2.30(b) did not authorize the sanctions
In re Suhey G.
A father's petition for an extraordinary writ to vacate the trial court's order for an evaluation of him under the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children (ICPC) and setting a selection and implementation hearing as to his five year old daughter, is: 1) denied in part, as to father's objection to the trial court's order for an ICPC evaluation where the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering such an evaluation; but 2) granted in part, where the court erred to the extent it set a Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 hearing and denied father a fair opportunity to present his case for relief under section 361.2.
In re A.A.
On remand from the California Supreme Court, the juvenile court's orders declaring father's sons dependents of the court and removing them from his custody are reversed and remanded, where the trial court incorrectly concluded that father's sexual abuse of an unrelated nine year old girl by itself constituted substantial evidence that father's sons were also at risk of being sexually abused.
In re Autumn K.
The juvenile court's order terminating the parental rights of mother and father to their daughter and placing the child for adoption is reversed and remanded, where: 1) the juvenile court erred in determining that maternal grandfather had a non-exemptible criminal conviction such that the child could not be placed with her grandparents; and 2) the juvenile court was thus obligated to evaluate the request for an exemption on its merits.