Appeals
When a party is not satisfied with the results of a trial in court, they often consider an appeal. An appeal is basically a request to an appellate court asking it to review and change a decision made in the trial court. Usually, an appeal is limited to the record in the trial court; this means that an appellate court will often not consider information that was not heard or read in the trial court.
Whether you are defending the outcome of your case, or looking to overturn a trial court ruling, I am available to help you with your family law appeal in Washington. In certain instances, I represent parents or children who disagree with trial court orders made in a dependency (child welfare) case out of several counties in California. If you have questions, please book now online or contact us for an initial consultation.
Whether you are defending the outcome of your case, or looking to overturn a trial court ruling, I am available to help you with your family law appeal in Washington. In certain instances, I represent parents or children who disagree with trial court orders made in a dependency (child welfare) case out of several counties in California. If you have questions, please book now online or contact us for an initial consultation.
Cases of Note:
In re Caden C., petition for review granted July 24, 2019, Case No. S255839
Case currently pending before the California Supreme Court. The Court granted review of this case to address the issues of: (1) The proper standard of review for appeals regarding the beneficial parental relationship exception to the termination of parental rights, and (2) Whether a showing that a parent has made progress in addressing the issues that led to dependency is necessary to meet the beneficial parental relationship exception.
In re H.F. (2018) Case No. F076972 (unpublished) Fifth Appellate District of California:
The mother and the county were respondents in this case filed by the child's attorney. The child argued on appeal that the dependency case was improperly terminated. The Court of Appeal agreed with the mother and the county and affirmed the juvenile court's decision to close the dependency case where the mother and the child had met their case plan objectives.
In re Nia A. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 1241 (published) First Appellate District of California, Division Three:
The Court of Appeal found that the juvenile court erred when it transferred the child's case out to a new county based upon the county's own confidentiality concerns and without consideration of the child's best interests. The Court of Appeal reversed the juvenile court's decision and remanded to the original county hearing the case.
In re Giselle L. (2016) Case No. F073501 (unpublished) Fifth Appellate District of California:
The Court of Appeal found that the juvenile court abused its discretion in refusing to grant the mother a continuance. The Court of Appeal found that a a continuance would not have been contrary to the child's interests and the denial of her requested continuance impacted the jurisdiction findings.
In re Anthony E. (2013) F066110 (unpublished) Fifth Appellate District of California:
The Court of Appeal found that the department failed to meet its notice requirements under the Indian Child Welfare Act and remanded to the juvenile court for proper notice in compliance with the Act.
In re Caden C., petition for review granted July 24, 2019, Case No. S255839
Case currently pending before the California Supreme Court. The Court granted review of this case to address the issues of: (1) The proper standard of review for appeals regarding the beneficial parental relationship exception to the termination of parental rights, and (2) Whether a showing that a parent has made progress in addressing the issues that led to dependency is necessary to meet the beneficial parental relationship exception.
In re H.F. (2018) Case No. F076972 (unpublished) Fifth Appellate District of California:
The mother and the county were respondents in this case filed by the child's attorney. The child argued on appeal that the dependency case was improperly terminated. The Court of Appeal agreed with the mother and the county and affirmed the juvenile court's decision to close the dependency case where the mother and the child had met their case plan objectives.
In re Nia A. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 1241 (published) First Appellate District of California, Division Three:
The Court of Appeal found that the juvenile court erred when it transferred the child's case out to a new county based upon the county's own confidentiality concerns and without consideration of the child's best interests. The Court of Appeal reversed the juvenile court's decision and remanded to the original county hearing the case.
In re Giselle L. (2016) Case No. F073501 (unpublished) Fifth Appellate District of California:
The Court of Appeal found that the juvenile court abused its discretion in refusing to grant the mother a continuance. The Court of Appeal found that a a continuance would not have been contrary to the child's interests and the denial of her requested continuance impacted the jurisdiction findings.
In re Anthony E. (2013) F066110 (unpublished) Fifth Appellate District of California:
The Court of Appeal found that the department failed to meet its notice requirements under the Indian Child Welfare Act and remanded to the juvenile court for proper notice in compliance with the Act.