 |
|
 
|
 |
|||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Here are the latest cases impacting family law in California. |
| [07/18] Gaudin v. Remis The district court erred when it decided that two minor children, abducted by their father in Canada and brought to the United States, could not be returned to Canada under the International Child Abduction Remedies Act and the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International and Child Abduction. |
| [07/18] Meagher v. Maleki A prospective spouse's fraud regarding financial matters is not a proper basis upon which to order an annulment. |
| [07/14] Morenz v. Wilson-Coker Plaintiff cannot be found ineligible for Medicaid on account of his and his spouse's combined assets since he had effected a valid assignment of spousal support rights to the State of Connecticut. |
[07/12] Simpson v. T.D. Williamson, Inc. |
| [07/12] Annette F. v. Sharon S. In an action raising custody and visitation isues, defendant's appeal of an order awarding attorney fees to plaintiff is dismissed where her notice of appeal was not timely filed. |
| [07/07] In re the Marriage of Klug In a dissolution of marriage proceeding, settlement proceeds from a legal malpractice lawsuit are respondent's separate property since the cause of action for the lawsuit arose after separation. |
| [07/05] Tindall v. Poultney High Sch. Dist. A parent not admitted to the bar cannot bring an action pro se in federal court on behalf of his or her child. |
| [06/30] Lashkajani v. Lashkajani Parties may, by express provision in a prenuptial agreement, contract away a future obligation to pay attorney's fees and costs during the term of the marriage by providing for prevailing party attorney's fees in actions seeking to enforce or prevent the breach of the prenuptial agreement. |
| [06/30] In re S.B. Termination of a mother's parental rights is affirmed over her claim that the juvenile court and social worker complied only belatedly with their duty under the Indian Child Welfare Act to inquire into the child's Indian ancestry. |
| [06/30] In re Javier G. Jurisdictional findings on a Welfare and Institutions Code section 387 petition are interlocutory and nonappealable. |
| [06/28] In Re A.C. The juvenile court's grant of de facto parent status to the foster parents is reversed on the ground that California does not have subject matter jurisdiction of the dependency proceeding since the birth parents are residents of Tijuana. |
| [06/23] In re Michelle C. The trial court violated plaintiff-mother's constitutional rights by terminating her parental rights at a hearing at which neither she nor her attorney were present. |
| [06/23] In re Aaron R. In a dependency proceeding, an order terminating parental rights and freeing the minor for adoption is affirmed over the mother's claim that the trial court failed to make a determination as to whether the child was an Indian child within the meaning of the Indian Child Welfare Act. |
| [06/22] Katie V. v. Super. Ct. of San Diego The juvenile court's order terminating reunification services is affirmed over plaintiff's claims that 1) she was not offered reasonable reunification services, and 2) the court erred by applying a preponderance of the evidence standard instead of a clear and convincing standard. |
| [06/15] Jones v. Haberman Dismissal of plaintiff's section 1983 suit, alleging that defendant-social worker unlawfully seized her and demanded that she leave her mother's care, is reversed where defendant violated plaintiff's clearly established Fourth Amendment rights. |
| [06/15] McClellan v. County of San Diego The superior court properly denied plaintiff's application for an order to omit certain accrued interest from the calculation of his unpaid child support arrearages. |
| [06/08] Hosanna Homes v. County of Alameda Social Serv. Agency An original foster family agency's refusal to accept the surrender of a foster family's certification with that agency does not preclude a subsequent rollover to another foster family agency. |
| [06/07] In re Carlos E. A legal guardian appointed by the juvenile court is not entitled to reunification services and, therefore, cannot challenge the adequacy of these services. |
| [06/03] Thomas v. Gonzales Family membership may constitute membership in a "particular social group," and thus confer refugee status on a family member who has been persecuted or who has a well-founded fear of future persecution on account of that familial relationship. |
[05/27] Powell v. Hon. Judge Earl Stover
|
Compatibility Survey Explore your long-term marital compatibility to clarify strengths and weaknesses. ---- PreDivorce Survey Examine the complexity and conflict in your divorce situation. ---- Free Audio Workshop |
|
Copyright 2005 : Family Law Offices of Ronald M. Supancic
HOME | ABOUT US | INFORMATION CENTER | BOOKS, VIDEOS, & MORE | EVENTS | LINKS | CONTACT *A free phone consultation will provide you with general legal information. |