Your recipients will receive an email with this envelope shortly and will be able to access it on trellis. You can always see your envelopes by clicking the Inbox on the top right hand corner.
Your subscription has successfully been upgraded.
Welfare and Institutions Code § 366.26 is ‘the exclusive vehicle for terminating parental rights when a child has been declared a dependent of the juvenile court.’ (Jackson v. Fitzgibbons (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 329, 334 citing County of Ventura v. Gonzales (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 1120, 1124) An order terminating parental rights terminates the parental duty of support, and it also terminates all rights of the parent in and to the child as well as the rights of the child in and to the parent.” (Jackson v. Fitzgibbons (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 329, 335.)
Jackson v. Fitzgibbons (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 329, 335, is a case in which the court found a child lacked standing to bring a wrongful death action on behalf of her biological mother. The court concluded that the order terminating her biological mother’s parental rights pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code § 366.26 had ended the parent-child relationship. (Id.)
In speaking to the effect of termination, the court in Fraizer noted, “the parents were parents no longer... [a]s a result of the order terminating parental rights, the court permanently terminated all parental rights and obligations of parents to child, and all rights and obligations of the child to the parents.” (Fraizer v. Velkura (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 942, 946) “‘The proceedings to declare a child free from parental control . . . contemplate . . . the severance of the relationship between the child and its parent or parents.’” (Fraizer v. Velkura (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 942, 946 quoting In re Zimmerman (1962) 206 Cal.App.2d 835, 843.)
To terminate parental rights the State must conduct a hearing under a constitutionally proper standard. (Santosky v. Kramer (1982) 455 U.S. 745, 770.)
“Parents and children have a well-elaborated constitutional right to live together without governmental interference.” (Rogers, infra, 487 F.3d 1288, 1294 citing Wallis v. Spencer (2000) 202 F.3d 1126, 1136.) “The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees that parents will not be separated from their children without due process of law except in emergencies.” (Mabe v. San Bernardino County, Dep't of Pub. Soc. Servs.(2001) 237 F.3d 1101, 1107.) “
Officials violate this right if they remove a child from the home absent ‘information at the time of the seizure that establishes ‘reasonable cause to believe that the child is in imminent danger of serious bodily injury and that the scope of the intrusion is reasonably necessary to avert that specific injury.’” ( Id. quoting Wallis, 202 F.3d at 1138).) “The Fourth Amendment also protects children from removal from their homes absent such a showing. (Doe v. Lebbos (2003) 348 F.3d 820, 827 n. 9.) “Officials, including social workers, who remove a child from its home without a warrant must have reasonable cause to believe that the child is likely to experience serious bodily harm in the time that would be required to obtain a warrant.” (Rogers v. County of San Joaquin (2007) 487 F.3d 1288, 1294.)
Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 is ‘the exclusive vehicle for terminating parental rights when a child has been declared a dependent of the juvenile court.’ [Citation.] An order terminating parental rights terminates the parental duty of support, and it also terminates all rights of the parent in and to the child as well as the rights of the child in and to the parent.” (Jackson v.
KIZER V. SONOMA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
SCV-259105
Jan 05, 2018
René Auguste Chouteau
Sonoma County, CA
Here, the “the acts complained of were committed by Defendant Zeidler” in a series of juvenile court hearings resulting in the termination of Plaintiff’s parental rights. (Complaint ¶ 44.) There are no facts alleging that the County is responsible for any constitutional violations carried out in accordance with their own regulations, policies, customs, or usages. Moreover, Judge Zeidler is not a County employee.
JANET GIANG, ET AL. VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.
18STCV05544
Dec 03, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Discrimination/Harass
Nature of Proceedings: PETITION FOR TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS No tentative.
GUARDIANSHIP OF RYAN HERBERT KROEMER
1098285
Sep 11, 2008
Santa Barbara County, CA
Evidence of termination of parental rights of father as referenced in petition Parties: Attorneys: ANGELA FISHER JAMES FISHEL
RE: OSC RE: NAME CHANGE
MSN19-2213
Jan 14, 2020
Contra Costa County, CA
Proposed Order Note: Caption requests termination of “parents’ parental rights;” however, prayer only refers to father. If petitioner seeks to terminate rights of mother, need Proof of Service of Citation on mother.
MSA22-00054
Jun 06, 2022
Contra Costa County, CA
DISCUSSION Defendant contends that Plaintiffs counsel should be dismissed because Plaintiffs counsels attorney-client relationship with his counsel terminated when his biological parents lost their parental rights, and all actions taken by Plaintiffs counsel since the termination are void. Defendant also contend that it will be deprived of finality because Plaintiff may set aside the disposition of this matter at a later time.
DASHIELL HAMMETT VS SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ALCOHOL & DRUG PROGRAMM
19STCV30622
Jun 08, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
Just one subdivision below that language is the following federal law: In any State court proceeding for the foster care placement of, or termination of parental rights to, an Indian child not domiciled or residing within the reservation of the Indian child’s tribe, the court, in the absence of good cause to the contrary, shall transfer such proceeding to the jurisdiction of the tribe, absent objection by either parent, upon the petition of either parent or the Indian custodian or the Indian child’s tribe: Provided
GUARDIANSHIP OF AUBREY ALEXIS PAGALING
21PR00049
Apr 07, 2021
Santa Barbara County, CA
No Petition for Termination of parental rights has been filed
RE: PET’N FOR APPT OF LIMITED CONS OF PERSON
MSP17-00296
Apr 24, 2017
Contra Costa County, CA
Petitioner also states that additional agreements would 5 need to be signed by both parties if Petitioner wanted to use any of their embryos and that no 6 statute would confer parental rights and obligations on Respondent even if she did use one of the 7 embryos.
FDI-22-796677
Jan 04, 2024
San Francisco County, CA
Petitioner also states that additional agreements would 5 need to be signed by both parties if Petitioner wanted to use any of their embryos and that no 6 statute would confer parental rights and obligations on Respondent even if she did use one of the 7 embryos.
FDI-22-796677
Oct 31, 2023
San Francisco County, CA
Code, §15600 et seq.); (2) actions and proceedings relating to unlawful detainer; (3) actions and proceedings to terminate parental rights; (4) actions and proceedings relating to conservatorship or guardianship; (5) actions and proceedings by a parent to obtain sole legal or physical custody of a child or rights to visitation; (6) all other actions and proceedings under Code of Civil Procedure section 527.6 or the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act; (7) all other actions and proceedings related
ALLAH VS. MV TRANSPORTATION
30-2015-00789909-CU-WT-CJC
Apr 03, 2017
Orange County, CA
LEGAL STANDARD [A] motion to dismiss [is] the legal equivalent of a general demurrer. ( Citizens for Parental Rights v. San Mateo County Bd. of Education (1975) 51 Cal.App.3d 1, 34.) In California, a demurrer serves the purpose of a motion to dismiss. ( ZL Technologies, Inc. v. Does 17 (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 603, 612, fn. 4.) A motion to dismiss in federal court is the equivalent of a demurrer in California. ( The Swahn Group, Inc. v. Segal (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 831, 844.)
VAROUJ SHEKERDEMIAN VS DESAI HOLDINGS USA, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.
21STCV36602
Sep 20, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Additionally, it deals with a termination of parental rights judgment. Plaintiff also relies on In re: Patricia E. (1985) 174 Cal.App.3d 1, 6, which also concerned parental rights and foster placement. Neither of these cases considers or distinguishes the issues raised in Hoff, which is directly on point and which specifically holds there is no duty running between Plaintiff and the District and its employees.
VENICE J. GAMBLE VS LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL.
21LBCP00396
Jan 12, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
CRC 7.52; OR(3) Submit evidence that her parental rights have been terminated 4. Do one or the other, but not both: (1) Have a copy of the Notice of Hearing and Petition Form GC-210 served by mail on paternal grandmother and file Proof of Service or have each person sign a consent and waiver form (GC-211); OR (2) If a person cannot be found, submit a declaration (GC-02) explaining what efforts have been made to find that person. CRC 7.52 5.
RE: PET’N FOR TERMINATION OF GUARDIANSHIP
MSP16-00593
Mar 20, 2017
Contra Costa County, CA
Notices for Termination of Parental Rights A petition to declare a child free from the custody and control of either or both parents by be filed by various agencies. Family Code §7840. The hearing on the petition occurs after service on the parent. Family Code §7881.
METROPOLITAN NEWS COMPANY VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
21STCP00274
Jan 06, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
CRC 7.52; OR(3) Submit evidence that her parental rights have been terminated 3. Do one or the other, but not both: (1) Have a copy of the Notice of Hearing and Petition Form GC-210 served by mail on paternal grandmother and file Proof of Service or have each person sign a consent and waiver form (GC-211); OR (2) If a person cannot be found, submit a declaration (GC-02) explaining what efforts have been made to find that person. CRC 7.52 4.
RE: PET’N FOR TERMINATION OF GUARDIANSHIP
MSP15-01641
Nov 18, 2016
Contra Costa County, CA
However, in arguing against the applicability of summary judgment, respondents only cite to cases concerning the termination of parental rights and the Elections Code. While it is true that under Probate Code Section 17203 one only has to give 30 days-notice when objecting to an accounting, the Court has not set an evidentiary hearing on the accounting and petitioner has given the required 75 days-notice.
LIMA, RYAN, JR VS VELASCO, J JESUS MUNOZ
CV-20-000378
Feb 23, 2023
Stanislaus County, CA
Boskey (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 171, 193 [plaintiff could not recover on breach of contract claim for "ensuing mental and emotional suffering and distress from the loss of the relationship, custody, visitation, and parental rights as to [his] minor child"].) Moreover, when asked during his deposition to identify all of his damages, he failed to identify a single economic loss throughout four pages of testimony. (Ex. D at 116:25–120:18.)
37-2020-00016417-CU-DF-CTL
Jul 28, 2023
San Diego County, CA
However, these arguments fail because Petitioner makes no showing that incompetence of counsel or ineffective assistance of counsel have any application in a general civil proceeding or in a family law proceeding that does not involve termination of parental rights. (Cf. In re Kristin H. (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1635, 1662.) Constitutional provisions relating to the right to counsel refer specifically to criminal prosecutions and do not apply to civil proceedings. (Chevalier v.
Real v. County of Orange Social Services Agency
Aug 01, 2016
Orange County, CA
Proof by clear and convincing evidence is required where particularly important individual interests or rights are at stake, such as the termination of parental rights, involuntary commitment, and deportation . . . However, imposition of even severe civil sanctions that do not implicate such interests has been permitted after proof by a preponderance of the evidence. Id .
FRANK A. MARSHALL, ET AL. VS STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, STRUCTURAL PEST CONTROL BOARD
21STCP03114
Aug 25, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
It is undisputed that Loeb unilaterally set up a trust for the embryos, unilaterally sued on behalf of the embryos, unilaterally attempted to create judicial persons from the embryos to create standing to sue, unilaterally attempted to gain custody and parental rights over the embryos, and unilaterally sought relief in the Louisiana Action for the purpose of unilaterally bringing the embryos to term without Vergara’s consent.
SOFIA VERGARA VS NICHOLAS LOEB ET AL
BC650580
Jan 08, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
.); obtaining authorizations for various purposes; testifying in court, etc. to ensure the protection of a child and the rights of the family, to initiate a process related to client services (e.g., removal orders, investigative warrants, protective custody warrants, dependency hearings, in-and-out/removal of incarcerated parents, delinquency hearings, permanency hearings, termination of parental rights, etc.), to make recommendations to the court, and to ensure that all court documents are legally sufficient
VIVEANA LOPEZ, ET AL. VS EMMA ONOFRE, ET AL.
19AVCV00601
Mar 14, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Please wait a moment while we load this page.