CA Unpub Decisions

Mother Nakia B. appeals from the dependency court’s orders denying her petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 388, terminating her parental rights under section 366.26, and selecting adoption as the permanent plan for her five year old son, R.L., and three year old daughter, A.G. Mother’s sole argument on appeal is that the court abused its discretion when it denied her section 388 petition after finding that her nascent drug and alcohol recovery efforts did not constitute changed circumstances sufficient to recommend reinstatement of reunification services. Finding no error, we affirm.

Heidi C. (mother) appeals from the juvenile court’s jurisdictional and dispositional findings and orders regarding her children Mason C. (born May 2015) and Roman C. (born March 2016). Mother contends substantial evidence did not support the court’s jurisdictional findings pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivisions (b) and (j), based on her substance abuse and mental health issues, or on the children’s older sibling having previously received permanent placement services. She also contends there was insubstantial evidence supporting the court’s dispositional order removing the children from her custody, and the court abused its discretion in ordering her to complete a drug program.
We agree the evidence did not support the juvenile court’s jurisdictional findings and order, and therefore reverse.

Mother Angel W. appeals from the jurisdiction and disposition orders of the juvenile court declaring her toddler M. a dependent (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 300, subds. (b) & (j)) and removing him from her custody (§ 361, subd. (c)). She contends that the evidence does not support the finding that M. was at risk of substantial harm from her marijuana use or her physical abuse of M.’s sibling, E. She also contends that the court abused its discretion in including drug-testing as part of the disposition order, and that the removal order is not supported by substantial evidence. We conclude that the evidence supports the finding that M. is described by section 300, subdivision (j), and that the removal and drug-testing orders were a proper exercise of discretion. Accordingly, we affirm the orders.

K.R. (mother) appeals from jurisdiction findings and disposition orders made pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300 removing her then-three-year-old daughter, K.R., from her custody and denying reunification services. Mother contends the court placed undue weight on her history of drug use and prior loss of custody of her other children, and failed to consider the lack of evidence of any current risk of harm to K.R., as well as evidence of her efforts at rehabilitation. As such, mother contends the court erred in sustaining the jurisdictional allegations against her and in denying reunification services. We disagree and affirm.

Appellant S.S., mother of minors J.G. and J.S., appeals from the juvenile court’s orders terminating parental rights and freeing the minors for adoption. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 366.26, 395.) She contends the San Joaquin County Health and Human Services Agency (Agency) failed to comply with the inquiry and notice provisions of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) because it failed to inquire of one father (G.G., father of minor J.G., hereafter “father 1”) and failed to exercise reasonable diligence to locate and inquire of the other father (G.M., father of minor J.S., hereafter “father 2”). We agree and shall reverse the orders terminating parental rights and remand for further proceedings.

D.M. and M.M. (the twins), are twin siblings who were placed in the foster home of M.G. and A.A. shortly after birth in 2014. About a year later, their 10 year-old half-sister J.P. was placed in the same home. When their parents failed to reunify, parental rights of the twins were terminated, and a permanent plan of adoption by the foster parents was ordered. After being told by the San Bernardino Children and Family Services (CFS) that the now 11 year-old J.P. could not share a room with her two-year-old siblings, and J.P.’s reports that the foster parents were spanking the twins and neglecting her, the foster parents gave a seven-day notice to have J.P. removed from their home. Concluding it was in the twins’ best interests to remain with their older sister, all three children were removed from the home. The foster parents objected to the removal of D.M. and M.M. only, but, after a contested hearing, the court approved the removal of the twins. M.G. appealed.

The juvenile court declared minors Clayton M. (born July 2002) and Brooklyn C. (born March 2011) dependents of the court under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b), finding that Natalie M. (mother) used inappropriate physical discipline on Clayton, placing him and Brooklyn at risk of serious physical harm. The court ordered Clayton removed from mother’s custody and placed in the home of his father, Clayton M. Sr. (Clayton Sr.). On appeal, mother contends insufficient evidence supports the jurisdictional finding and the dispositional order removing Clayton from her custody. We affirm.

Appellant Paul N. (Father) appeals from the juvenile court’s order terminating dependency jurisdiction over his daughter, Claire N., and granting monitored visitation for Father at least one time per month. Father contends the court erred when it delegated to Claire’s mother Kelly S. (Mother) the authority to choose the monitor for Father’s visits. Because Father did not object to the condition of visitation, we affirm.

Leticia Soto Fernandez (Fernandez) appeals from a judgment finding her liable for breach of contract and awarding attorney fees to Impact Realty (Impact). Impact cross-appeals, arguing the trial court erred in finding Fernandez did not conspire to commit fraud, and abused its discretion in awarding a reduced amount of attorney fees. We affirm.

In this opinion, we address the motion by defendant/respondent Old Republic Home Protection Company, Inc. (Old Republic) to dismiss the appeal of, and impose monetary sanctions against, plaintiff/appellant Syed N. Ali. Old Republic reasons that the appeal pending before us is patently frivolous and that the brief filed in support of it is in violation of mandatory California Rules of Court. For reasons set forth below, we agree the appeal should be dismissed, yet decline to impose monetary sanctions.

Plaintiff, Victor Voss (Victor), purchased real property in Moreno Valley, but never recorded the deed. In 2012, he needed money to avoid foreclosure. So he had the original grantor transfer title to his former significant other, Joan Fontaine (Fontaine), which deed was recorded, and she paid all arrearages, agreeing to allow Victor’s father, Robert Voss (Robert), to remain on the property. Victor was supposed to resume mortgage payments in a year, but did not do so, so Fontaine listed the property for sale with defendant Berkshire Hathaway Home Services California (Berkshire), and it was purchased by Eugene Yi Chun Shay (Shay). When Shay attempted to evict Robert, the Vosses filed suit for breach of contract, declaratory relief, promissory estoppel, quiet title, fraud, and negligent misrepresentation.

Petitioner Sheila Stock seeks relief from an order compelling arbitration of her claims against Real Parties in Interest Serenity Malibu, LLC, Seasons Recovery Center, LLC, and Seaside Recovery Center, LLC. Because Stock failed to raise the grounds on which she seeks relief in the trial court, we will decline to grant extraordinary relief.

Plaintiffs Clare and Jack Steele sold the business assets of their pastry shop and café to a buyer on the condition the buyer enter a new commercial lease in place of theirs. The buyer did obtain a new lease but promptly defaulted on it after her fiancé stole her money. Because the Steeles had signed personal guarantees of the new lease, they remained liable for the rent until the date their original lease would have expired. Although a new tenant was eventually found, the base rent was about $1,000 per month less than under the buyer’s lease — a differential for which the Steeles were responsible under the terms of their guarantees. The Steeles sued the broker who had arranged the sale, defendants Silver Oak Real Estate of Orange County, a California corporation, doing business as Prudential California Realty and Sean Edelstein, its agent, for breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, negligence, plus contribution and equitable indemnity. A jury rendered a verdict in defendants’

F.A. was born in February 2015. In August, his parents Scott A. and Amber C., were married. But by March of 2016, F.A.’s parents had separated and F.A. was living with his mother. In early 2017, while at a fast food restaurant, Amber began “acting very strange” – including exhibiting “erratic and paranoid-like behavior” and saying someone was following her and trying to kill her. The incident led to social workers filing a dependency petition on behalf of F.A. two days later. Scott was in jail at the time,