CA Unpub Decisions

On December 22, 2005, the Kern County District Attorney filed a petition to extend appellant Emmett Earl Dodds involuntary civil commitment pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 6604 et seq. On July 20, 2006, after a jury found that Dodd was a sexually violent predator, the court ordered him recommitted beginning April 4, 2006, and ending on April 4, 2008. On appeal, Dodd contends the court committed instructional error. Court affirm.

Defendant Norman Alan Runion was convicted of oral copulation of a sleeping person (Pen. Code, 288a, subd. (f)(1)) and assault with intent to commit oral copulation (Pen. Code, 220, subd. (a)), both felonies. (All further statutory references are to this code.) He contends the judgment must be reversed because the court took the verdict without his presence and failed to use reasonable diligence to procure it. Judgment affirmed.

Despite the caption, this case is, in substance, neither a juvenile dependency case nor a juvenile delinquency case. In substance, it is a civil liability laches case involving the parent of a juvenile delinquent. Specifically, Darryl O., the father of Robert O., appeals from a judgment for $3,974.64 obtained by the Orange County Probation Department to cover the costs of Roberts stay in juvenile facilities during two periods, (1) May 23, 2004 through October 31, 2004, and (2) September 15, 2005 through September 30, 2005. (Darryl got a good deal on the terms of payment: The court ordered him to make payments at the rate of only $100 a month.) The judgment of the juvenile court providing that Darryl O. is to pay $3,974.64 to the county is hereby modified to reduce the sum owed by him to $3,592.24.

Frank D. Luer sued Orange County Sheriffs Deputy Johnny Seto and the County of Orange (collectively referred to as defendants) because Seto did not arrest a person whom Luer had placed under citizens arrest. The trial court sustained defendants demurrer without leave to amend. Court conclude Seto is immune from liability for violations of 42 United States Code section 1983 and for state law torts. In addition, Luer failed to allege that Seto violated any rights protected by the California Constitution. Court therefore affirm.

Aristeo S. (also known as Aricio S.) petitions for extraordinary relief from the order of the juvenile court setting a permanent plan selection hearing pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26[1]for his three younger children, Brenda, Andrew, and Marco. He claims there is clear and convincing evidence that the children either are not adoptable or, if they are adoptable, certain exceptions apply to make adoption detrimental to them. Court find no error and deny the petition.

A modification decision.

In this action for breach of contract and bad faith, defendant State Farm General Insurance Company obtained a summary judgment on the ground that the lawsuit was untimely under the terms of the policy. Plaintiff Olivia Garcia appeals, contending that her complaint was timely and the loss was covered. Court agree with the trial court that the action was barred by the one-year limitation provision in plaintiff's policy, and Court therefore must affirm the judgment.

In this marital dissolution case, the wife appeals from an order terminating her spousal support. Finding no basis for disturbing the order, Court affirm.

In this appeal, the mother of a dependent child challenges the order terminating her parental rights and freeing the child for adoption. The mothers appeal rests on her claim that the juvenile court committed reversible error in failing to assure compliance with the notice requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). More specifically, she asserts that ICWA required notice of the dependency proceedings to both Apache and Navajo tribes, but that only the Apache nation was notified. For reasons explained below, we reject the mothers ICWA claim on the merits. Court therefore affirm the order terminating parental rights.

Defendant Anthony V. Pratt appeals from a judgment entered following his guilty plea to several offenses. He contends he was deprived of effective assistance of counsel because his trial attorney failed to move to withdraw his guilty pleas on proper grounds. Court conclude that in the absence of a certificate of probable cause, the appeal must be dismissed.

Defendant was convicted following a jury trial of misdemeanor assault (Pen. Code, 240) and elder abuse (Pen. Code, 368, subd. (b)(1)). In this appeal, he argues that misconduct was committed by the prosecutor during closing argument. Court conclude that no prejudicial prosecutorial misconduct occurred, and affirm the judgment.

Charles P., appellant, appeals the order finding that his son, Cody P., was likely to be adopted and that termination of parental rights would not be detrimental to the child. Court affirm.

The trial court sustained respondent Jeld Wen, Inc.s (Jeld Wen) demurrer to appellant James Kerrs fraud cause of action without leave to amend. Later, it denied Kerrs motion for leave to amend his complaint. Kerr appeals from the subsequent judgment of dismissal, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion (1) by sustaining the demurrer without leave to amend and (2) by denying his motion to amend the complaint. Court affirm the judgment.

Larry Wax (Father) appeals from an order regarding the three children of himself and his former wife, respondent Elizabeth Wax (Mother). He argues that the court abused its discretion when it made orders regarding therapy for those children. He also contends that Marin Countys local rule imposing a fee for the appearance of a court appointed mediator at a hearing is inconsistent with state law and that the practice of the Marin Family Court Services (FCS) of excluding counsel from mediation deprived him of the assistance of counsel at a critical point in the proceedings. Court conclude that, although the court erred in not making therapy-related findings required under Family Code section 3190, this error was not prejudicial. Court also conclude that Father waived his remaining arguments and affirm the judgment.