Block on Trump's Asylum Ban Upheld by Supreme Court
Vanderkous v. Conley, A125352, concerned a challenge to the trial court's finding that a trustee's attempt to dismiss the action was void ab initio, because it was made after trial court had commenced and after it had entered judgment quieting title in trustee and directing him to pay defendant the full market value of the property as compensation for defendant's equitable interest, in the trustee's suit seeking to quiet title to certain real property. In affirming, the court held that the trial court properly set aside trustee's purported dismissal of the action. The court also held that the court properly ordered the trustee to compensate defendant for her equitable interest in the property when it quieted his title to the garage area. Lastly, substantial evidence supports the property's valuation as a conforming legal lot.
In re Jose C., B221562, concerned a challenge to the juvenile court's order terminating mother's parental rights and freeing the child for adoption. In affirming the order, the court held that the trial court did not err in finding that the child was likely to be adopted, and that the juvenile court did not err in failing to consider "presumed father" status for the grandfather.
In re H.S., C063087, concerned a challenge to a juvenile court's orders adjudicating minors to be dependent children and removing them from parental custody. In affirming, the court held that the tern "new evidence" in section 388 means material evidence that, with due diligence, the party could not have presented at the dependency proceeding at which the order, sought to be modified or set aside, was entered, and here, the father's section 388 motion relied on a expert opinion that was based not on any new evidence, but on the same evidence available to the experts who testified at trial. Further, to allow the belated new opinion evidence to support a section 388 motion would be contrary to the public policy calling for promptness and finality of juvenile dependency proceedings in order to protect the best interests of the child.
In re A.L., G043221, concerned a father's challenge to the trial court's dispositional order that a minor child be returned to the custody of her mother and an order of family enhancement services, in dependency proceedings. In affirming, the court held that, because parental custody of the child was not disrupted by the dispositional order, and the child was not placed in foster care, there is no current need to "reunify" this family. Further, the father has made no showing that the "family enhancement" services ordered for him were not reasonable or did not constitute child welfare services or services provided by an appropriate agency.
Conservatorship of the Person & Estate of Carol K., C061006, concerned a challenge to the trial court's judgment ordering a 62-year-old woman to be placed in a locked skilled nursing facility as the least restrictive placement, after the jury found the woman gravely disabled beyond a reasonable doubt. In affirming, the court held that the issue is not moot because "collateral consequences remain even after the conservatorship has been terminated." Further, substantial evidence supports a finding that the woman is gravely disabled and cannot obtain food, clothing, or shelter.