CA Unpub Decisions

Appellant Joseph H. (father) appeals from certain of the juvenile court’s findings that were the basis for establishing dependency jurisdiction over his daughter Allison (born July 2016) under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300. We affirm the juvenile court’s jurisdictional findings and orders.

Peter Keith appeals from a court trial judgment declaring that he does not have a prescriptive easement in a parking lot. He is also prohibited from maintaining parking spaces and bumpers on a portion of his property. Keith contends the judgment is not supported by substantial evidence. We affirm.

R.M. appeals orders denying her petition for modification under Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 and terminating parental rights under section 366.26. She contends the court erred when it denied her petition to return her daughter to her care. We affirm.

On May 3, 2016, minor defendant Josue H. and his mother engaged in a heated argument in their home. After breaking his bedroom door, Josue proclaimed he would stab his stepfather and stepbrother if they got closer. Josue stated he had a knife. Josue’s brother saw a knife approximately four feet away from Josue.
On May 4, 2016, a Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 petition was filed alleging that Josue committed two counts of making unlawful criminal threats, in violation of Penal Code section 422, subdivision (a). The juvenile court found both counts true and declared both offenses to be misdemeanors. The court ordered “custody [of Josue] be taken from parents or guardians” because “no reasonable means exist to protect the minor without removal.” Josue was ordered suitably placed in an “[o]pen facility.” The court also ordered that Josue may not be “held in physical confinement for a period to exceed 16 months.”

J.M. appeals an order denying his motion to seal his juvenile record (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 786) after the juvenile court dismissed a delinquency petition (§ 601) for possession of 28.5 grams or less of marijuana at school (Health & Saf. Code,
§ 11357, subd. (e)). Appellant contends that he successfully completed informal supervision and that section 786 requires that his juvenile record be sealed. We affirm.

Appellant J.J. was declared a ward of the court under Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 for committing attempted burglary. He contends the juvenile court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the charges at the close of the prosecution’s case because there was insufficient evidence to prove the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, and it applied the incorrect standard in denying the motion. He also contends the court abused its discretion in granting the prosecution a continuance to present rebuttal evidence. Finally, appellant challenges several conditions of probation: (1) the requirement he attend school regularly and obey all rules; (2) the prohibition against possessing illegal drugs and “associated paraphernalia” and; (3) the prohibition against possessing “any weapon,” including a “replica of a firearm.” We agree that the drug paraphernalia and weapons possession conditions must be modified, but otherwise affirm the dispositional order.

Christina R. (Mother) appeals from an order of the juvenile court on a juvenile dependency petition filed by the San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency (the Agency) on behalf of her daughter, H.G. (born 2011). She contends the juvenile court erred in having her share H.G.'s educational rights with the paternal grandmother because she and the grandmother did not get along. We reject her assertion and affirm the order.

Then 12-year-old defendant and appellant E.G. (minor) possessed 0.2 grams of marijuana on school grounds. Minor was subsequently placed on informal probation pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 654.2. After minor successfully completed informal probation, the juvenile court dismissed the petition and sealed minor’s juvenile court records in accordance with section 786. The juvenile court, however, denied minor’s request to seal his school records. Minor appeals from the judgment. Based on our independent review of the record, we find no error and affirm the judgment.

A.M. (the minor) appeals the jurisdictional and dispositional orders of the juvenile court in which he was found to have committed the crime of felony transportation and distribution of marijuana (Health & Saf. Code, former § 11360, subd. (a)). The minor was declared a ward of the court and placed on probation in his parents’ home. The juvenile court imposed various probation terms and conditions, including certain search conditions.
On appeal, the minor argues there is insufficient evidence to support the court’s finding that the minor’s offense constituted a felony since no evidence was introduced to show that the marijuana at issue weighed more than 28.5 grams. The minor further challenges two of the probation conditions requiring that he submit “property” under his control to search and seizure as being unconstitutionally vague and overbroad.

Both parents claimed possible Cherokee ancestry. In order to comply with the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et. seq.), San Bernardino County Children and Family Services (Department) sent a separate notice for each child to the three federally recognized Cherokee tribes. None of the tribes responded that the children were members or eligible to be members. The juvenile court found that ICWA did not apply.

The dependency court sustained a Welfare and Institutions Code section 300 petition, finding jurisdiction over and removing twin infant daughters A.B. and E.B. (collectively, the infants) from the custody of their mother Diana B. (Mother) and father Michael C. (Father), and placing them in the custody of their maternal grandmother (MGM) after first placing them with Mother and Father. Mother appeals, contending the evidence is insufficient to support the trial court’s finding that there were no reasonable means other than removal by which the infants’ well-being could be protected. We determine there is substantial evidence to support the dependency court’s determination, and affirm.

Plaintiff Kathleen Mary Dunphy appeals the trial court’s judgment dismissing her amended petition after the court sustained defendant Kelly Sue Dunphy Wilken’s demurrer without leave to amend. The amended petition alleged breach of trust and fraud, among other things, arising out of the management of a family trust. Kelly Sue argued the amended petition was time-barred by the applicable statute of limitations and the doctrine of laches. We agree and affirm the judgment.

Sholeh Davari Tehrani Clayton sued the County of Orange and certain of its employees (defendants) for violating her civil rights. The trial court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Clayton appeals from the ensuing judgment.
Defendants offered admissible evidence showing that Clayton could not establish one or more of the elements of her cause of action. Clayton failed to offer any admissible evidence of a triable issue of material fact. We therefore affirm.

The City of Wildomar, defendant and respondent, became incorporated on July 1, 2008, and also adopted a resolution approving the same general plan as the County of Riverside’s 2002 General Plan, as amended. Almost five years later, in April 2013, plaintiffs and appellants Martha Bridges and John Burkett filed a lawsuit contending the City had failed to adopt a general plan within 30 months of incorporation, citing Government Code section 65360. After a court trial, the court issued a statement of decision, ruling in favor of the City on the issues of the statute of limitations and laches. In a subsequent hearing, the trial court denied plaintiffs’ motion for new trial for the same reasons.
We agree with the trial court that the statute of limitations bars the action. Government Code section 65009 mandates that any action challenging Wildomar’s decision to adopt a general plan must be brought within 90 days of the general plan’s adoption on July 1, 2008. Furthermore, the