Recently in Family Law Category

A California court ruled this week that parental rights can be legally terminated when a parent poses a danger to his child, even if the danger results from a treatable mental disability.

The parents in this case married and adopted their minor child. Prior to the marriage, the father suffered from mental illness, but had taken medication that allowed him to function normally. Shortly after they adopted the child, the father stopped taking his medication. As he failed to take medication, his mental condition deteriorated to the point where it seriously impacted his relationship with his wife and child, resulting in restraining orders.

Today's California appeal includes stalking, dead animals, broken golf clubs and windows, and the definition of a victim.

Nancy Clayburg was convicted of two counts of stalking, and sentenced to prison for two years, eight months. The named victim of one of the stalking counts was "B.," Clayburg's former husband and the father of her daughter.

Eleven-year-old Destiny and her mother came to the attention of the Department of Children and Family Services in September 2011 when someone called the Department and alleged that Destiny was being sexually abused by an unknown perpetrator. The local police and the DCFS concluded after an investigation that the allegation was "unfounded."

In the course of that investigation, however, Destiny's mother admitted that she had a history of methamphetamine and marijuana use. She told the DCFS worker that she smokes marijuana on a weekly basis, but not around Destiny. She also told the worker that she had stopped using methamphetamine "over a year ago" but a drug test the same day came back positive.

If we're ever a litigant in a California appellate case, we hope that the judge doesn't begin the opinion with some kind of condescending life lesson like, "If ever there was a case where the adage 'be careful what you wish for' applied, this is surely it."

Losing a case that begins with an Aesop shoutout sounds miserable.

Jeffrey Barth understands that all too well, thanks to this Fourth Appellate District case.

Can your client refuse a state-ordered paternity test on privacy grounds?

E.M.'s mother receives public assistance from San Diego County on behalf of E.M. To offset public expense, the mother had to assign to the County the right to any child support up to the amount of that assistance. The County then had an interest in finding E.M.'s father.

Perhaps you've never considered the similarities -- and differences -- between ducks and weddings.

But you're probably familiar with the "duck test." If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck.

The same cannot be said for marriages, according to a California Appellate Court.

Losing a child is the most painful event that a parent could ever endure, but the California Supreme Court will allow social services to match a loss of life with a loss of custody when a parent's negligence resulted in a child's death.

In In Re Ethan C., et al, the California Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services can remove surviving children from a parent's home when the parent's negligence was the superseding cause in another child's death, even if the parent was not found criminally negligent in the death.

A California appellate court has clarified that a sperm donor who is not married to a designated recipient mother does not have to pay child support.

The unpublished opinion won press coverage earlier this month because the alleged “father” in the child support lawsuit is national bodybuilding champion Ronnie Coleman, and the child support in question totaled $4,000 per month.

Earlier this month, Los Angeles County Children's Court Presiding Judge Michael Nash opened the super-secret juvenile courtrooms to the press, except in cases in which an open hearing would be harmful to the child involved, reports the Los Angeles Times. Judge Nash believes the move will bring accountability to court proceedings, and comply with a state law giving people with a "legitimate interest" access to court proceedings.

It's an idea that Judge Nash has been touting for months, arguing that media access to these proceedings will improve "transparency for a branch of the legal system that handles child abuse, child neglect and foster care placements." The order, which applies only to dependency proceedings and not delinquency cases, was not universally well-received.

Last month, we wrote about a California Court of Appeals case in which the court ruled that a surviving parent could not use spite as a reason to deny a grandparent visitation rights. This week, we have another California case that adds context to the” anti-spite” determination.

While California courts will not permit a surviving parent to abuse the Supreme Court’s Troxel v. Granville decision, a grandparent petitioning for visitation rights must provide clear and convincing evidence to overcome the presumption that the parent denying visitation is acting in the best interest of the child.