CA Unpub Decisions

This is an appeal by mother from the trial court's orders terminating her parental rights to her then 10-year-old daughter, and selecting adoption as the permanent plan in a dependency proceeding under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300. Mother contends that the sibling relationship exception to parental rights termination applies in this case such that guardianship, not adoption, should be the permanent plan. Mother also contends that the evidence does not support the trial court's finding that minor is likely to be adopted. Court concluded that the mother's claims are meritless. Judgment Affirmed.

The mother appeals from orders summarily denying her Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 petition and terminating parental rights to her daughter. Mother contends: (1) The juvenile court erred by denying the section 388 petition, (2) there was insufficient evidence that minor was adoptable, (3) the juvenile court erred by finding that the "beneficial parental relationship" exception did not apply. Court found no error. Judgment Affirmed.

Father appeals from an order terminating his parental rights to his two-year-old son. Father contends that there was insufficient evidence to support the juvenile court's finding that the minor was likely to be adopted. Court rejected this contention and affirmed the judgment.

Mother appeals from an order terminating her parental rights pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. Mother further challenges an order denying her section 388 petition. The judgment is affirmed.

Father appeals from an order of the juvenile court terminating his parental relationship to his daughter under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. Father contends the juvenile court erred in (1) denying the request for a bonding study that would have determined the longterm effects that separation from her siblings would have on H.B.; (2) failing to apply the sibling relationship exception to the termination of parental rights despite acknowledging the existence of a close sibling relationship; and (3) failing to find a conflict of interest in representation of minor and her siblings, who had different permanent plans but were part of a bonded sibling set. Father further contends there was no evidence to support a finding that minor is likely to be adopted within a reasonable time. Counsel for minor joins the position of the Riverside County Department of Public Social Services urging affirmance of the order. Court found no error, and affirmed.

Mother and Father appeal from the termination of their parental rights as to minors,(born in 2003) and (born in 2001). Court found no error, and affirmed judgment.

Mother appeals from an order of the dependency court terminating her parental rights as to her two-year-old daughter. Court found no errors and affirmed the judgment.

Mother appeals from an order of the dependency court terminating her parental rights as to her 10-month-old son. Court found no error and affirmed the judgment.

Father appeals from an order of the dependency court terminating his parental rights as to his three children, eight-year-old, seven-year-old, and three-year-old minors. Court found no error and affirms the judgment.

Petitioner, the father of three dependent minors, challenges the trial court's order setting a hearing pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26. Defendant contends that the juvenile court erred in conducting a jurisdictional and dispositional hearing in his absence. Court concluded that any error in proceeding in petitioner's absence was harmless and deny the petition.

This is essentially an action for declaratory relief to determine whether the parties entered into a binding contract for the purchase and sale of real property. The critical part of the transaction was a counteroffer made by the seller using a standard real estate form that included a provision stating the counteroffer would be deemed revoked if it was not accepted by the buyers within three days from the date the seller signed it. For reasons that are the subject of the present disagreement, the seller's agent (who was also the buyer's agent) did not transmit the counteroffer to the buyers until four days after the effective revocation date. The buyers signed the form indicating their acceptance of the counteroffer, and returned it to the agent the same day they received it.
Whether the buyers' acceptance of the counteroffer created a contract, and if so what the terms of the contract were, also depends upon the significance to be attached to the parties' conduct during the next several weeks. The agent opened an escrow account, the buyers took steps to raise the money necessary to complete the purchase and, to the buyers and the agent at least, the sale appeared to be proceeding normally in the absence of any objection by the seller to the buyers' late acceptance of the counteroffer. But then, two months later, the seller objected to a different aspect of the deal and refused on this other ground to go through with the sale. The buyers then sued for declaratory relief and specific performance of the contract. When they later moved for summary judgment, the seller asserted in opposition to the motion, for the first time, that no contract had ever been formed given the buyers' untimely acceptance of the counteroffer. The court denied summary judgment, and a bench trial followed at which the seller again challenged the existence of the contract. The court concluded the seller had waived her objection to the buyers' late acceptance, and ordered her to complete the sale according to the terms of the counteroffer. It also ordered her to pay the buyers $58,092.25 toward their attorney fees incurred in the action, pursuant to an attorney fee provision in the contract. Court affirmed both the judgment and the order awarding attorney fees.

Appellant was charged with 11 felony counts, including kidnapping to commit rape, forcible rape, two counts of forcible oral copulation, forcible penetration with a foreign object, carjacking, second degree robbery, assault with a deadly weapon, auto theft, and two counts of false imprisonment by violence. The counts all arose out of an attack on victim, whom appellant forced off the road. The jury found appellant guilty of all 11 counts. The jury also found numerous special allegations true, including allegations of aggravated sexual assault and kidnapping for sexual purposes. In a bifurcated proceeding, the trial court found appellant had been convicted of five prior convictions, eight prior serious felonies, had suffered 11 prior strike convictions, and had served 11 prior prison terms. Appellant was sentenced to a total prison term of 301 years to life. Defendant appeals, judgment affirmed, sentence reduced.

Appellant pled no contest to receiving stolen property. Court suspended imposition of sentence and placed appellant on three years' probation, with various terms and conditions. Court found that appellant had violated his probation. Following independent review of the record, Court concluded that no reasonably arguable legal or factual issues exist. Judgment Affirmed.

Defendant appeals from an order terminating his parental rights to his three children. Defendant challenges a previous order terminating reunification services for him as well as contends the court failed to comply with noticing requirements under the Indian Child Welfare Act. On review, the court reversed and remanded to the superior court for ICWA notice compliance.