CA Unpub Decisions

Miguel G. appeals an order denying his request for reunification services. He contends delay in establishing his paternity of his daughter, Leah G., unfairly hindered his chance to participate in reunification services and weakened his ability to retain his parental rights. Court affirm the order.

Defendant entered a negotiated guilty plea to possessing a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, 11350, subd. (a)) and admitted a prior strike (Pen. Code, 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, 668). The court denied a motion to strike the prior strike and sentenced King to 32 months in prison: double the 16-month lower term for possessing a controlled substance with a prior strike. The court denied a certificate of probable cause. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b).) The judgment is affirmed.

Joan C. appeals a juvenile court judgment terminating her parental rights over R.M. and Nikki M. and choosing adoption as the preferred permanent plan. (Welf. & Inst. Code, 366.26.)Joan contends the children received ineffective assistance of counsel, which resulted in a plan of adoption for R.M., a teenager, over her objection; the court abused its discretion by denying her petition for modification ( 388) and not returning the children to her custody; and insufficient evidence supports the court's findings the beneficial parent child relationship, child-objection and sibling relationship exceptions to adoption are inapplicable ( 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(A), (B) & (E)). Court affirm the judgment.

Lizbeth M. appeals an order removing her dependent minor daughter, Yasmin M., from her custody under Welfare and Institutions Code section 361, subdivision (c)(1). Lizbeth challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the court's dispositional findings. Court affirm the order.

David V., the father of Kellen V., appeals the juvenile dependency court's six-month review hearing order that continued Kellen's placement in a group home. David contends there is no substantial evidence to support the finding that returning Kellen to him would have been detrimental to Kellen. Court affirm.

Keith P. appeals the judgment terminating his parental rights over Christian P. and William P. He contends the adoptability finding is unsupported by substantial evidence, the juvenile court erred by declining to apply the beneficial relationship exception to termination (Welf. & Inst. Code, 366.26, subd. (c)(1)(A)) (statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise specified), and the court violated his due process rights by terminating his parental rights absent clear and convincing evidence of his unfitness. Court affirm.

Jimmie S. appeals an order denying his Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 modification petition. Court affirm the order.

Amanda S. appeals the findings and orders entered at the termination of parental rights hearing held pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. Citing In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, she asks this court to exercise its discretion to review the record for error.
In In re Sade C., the California Supreme Court held review pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 is unavailable in "an indigent parent's appeal from a judgment or order, obtained by the state, adversely affecting [her] custody of a child or [her] status as the child's parent." (In re Sade C., supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 959.) We therefore deny her requests to review the record for error and to address her Anders issues. (Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738.) Amanda S.'s counsel also requests leave for her to file a supplemental brief in propria persona. The request is denied. The appeal is dismissed.

Plaintiffs appeal from judgment in favor of defendants Little League Baseball and East Baseline Little League following the trial courts granting of defendants motions for summary judgment in plaintiffs lawsuit against defendants seeking damages for sexual abuse they suffered from Norman Watson, a registered sex offender, through his association with East Baseline Little League. Plaintiffs contend that triable issues of fact exist as to whether East Baseline Little League was the proximate cause of plaintiffs injuries and as to Little League Baseballs liability for East Baseline Little Leagues direct negligence based on an agency relationship. Court affirm the summary judgment as to Little League Baseball and reverse as to East Baseline Little League.

A jury convicted Defendant of unlawfully taking/driving a vehicle (Veh. Code, 10851, subd. (a)). In bifurcated proceedings, the jury found that Hale had a prior conviction for which he had served a prison term (Pen. Code, 667.5, subd. (b)) and two strike priors. (Pen. Code, 667, subds. (c) & (e)(2)(A).) He was sentenced to prison for 25 years to life and appeals, claiming the trial court erroneously denied his motion for a mistrial or to strike the victims testimony, misinstructed the jury and failed to poll it. He also contends that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict and the true finding as to one of his strike priors and the prosecutor committed misconduct. Court reject all his contentions, save the one concerning the insufficiency of the evidence of the strike prior. Court agree with this latter contention, and, therefore, reverse the true finding and defendants sentence, remand the matter for retrial of the strike allegation, and otherwise affirm.

Nancy Bohl (Bohl) and her company, The Counseling Team (TCT), initiated this action against Raymond Pryke (Pryke) and other defendants after Pryke published a series of false and defamatory articles in three local newspapers which he personally owned and operated. The articles accused Bohl of various crimes and misconduct, resulting in causing her and TCT economic harm. Given the nature of the lawsuit, Pryke raised the California reporters shield laws to avoid revealing his sources. Bohl and TCT (herein collectively referred to as Plaintiffs) moved to compel Pryke to answer. After Plaintiffs made a prima facie showing of falsity, the trial court ordered Pryke to answer the discovery. He failed to do so, and the trial court eventually granted Plaintiffs motion to strike Prykes answer and enter his default. Proceeding to the default prove-up trial, Plaintiffs introduced evidence to support their claims and request for damages. Thus, the court awarded damages, including punitive, and costs to Plaintiffs. Appellant appeals.The judgment is reversed. The trial courts order striking Prykes answer and entering his default is reversed. Prykes answer is to be reinstated and the matter is remanded for further proceedings as directed within the body of this opinion.

Plaintiffs appeal from the judgment of the trial court in favor of defendant and respondent County of San Bernardino (the County) after the courts order granting the Countys motion for summary judgment in this negligence action. Plaintiffs contend the trial court erred when it determined: 1) the sheriffs deputies had no duty of care to their son, the decedent, Brett Maragno; 2) the deputies did not breach any duty of care; 3) any breach was not a cause of Brett Maragnos death; and 4) the deputies and therefore the County are entitled to immunity under Health and Safety Code section 1799.106.
The judgment is affirmed.

Appellant alleges that the juvenile court abused its discretion by committing him to the Division of Juvenile Justice, formerly known as the California Youth Authority (DJJ or CYA). Court disagree and affirm.

Objector and appellant (father) is the natural father of the child. Father filed a petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 827 requesting a copy of a police report concerning the child. The juvenile court denied the petition and father now appeals.
The courts order denying fathers petition under section 827 is affirmed.