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 contact Michelle for more information.
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 contact Michelle for more information.
Cases of Note:
In re M.V., et al. (2023) Case No. A164302 (unpublihed) First Appellate District of California, Division Two:
The Court of Appeal reversed the termination of the mother's reunification services because the mother's "limited progress" was the result of the agency's delay in providing individual and family therapy services, and not due to any lack of effort on the mother's part. "Our review of the record as a whole reveleas a parent who has steadily mitigated the circumstances that brought her children under dependency jurisdiction...The arc of this case fails to honor California's commitment to preserving the family unit..."
In re E.W., et al. (2020) Case No. A159358 (unpublished) First Appellate District of California, Division Four:
The Court of Appeal found that the county did not comply with ICWA and conditionally reversed and remanded for compliance with the inquiry and notice provisions of ICWA and of sections 224.2 and 224.3 of the Welf. & Inst. Code.
In re Caden C., petition for review granted July 24, 2019, decision May 27, 2021 Case No. S255839
Case decided 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 M.V., et al. (2023) Case No. A164302 (unpublihed) First Appellate District of California, Division Two:
The Court of Appeal reversed the termination of the mother's reunification services because the mother's "limited progress" was the result of the agency's delay in providing individual and family therapy services, and not due to any lack of effort on the mother's part. "Our review of the record as a whole reveleas a parent who has steadily mitigated the circumstances that brought her children under dependency jurisdiction...The arc of this case fails to honor California's commitment to preserving the family unit..."
In re E.W., et al. (2020) Case No. A159358 (unpublished) First Appellate District of California, Division Four:
The Court of Appeal found that the county did not comply with ICWA and conditionally reversed and remanded for compliance with the inquiry and notice provisions of ICWA and of sections 224.2 and 224.3 of the Welf. & Inst. Code.
In re Caden C., petition for review granted July 24, 2019, decision May 27, 2021 Case No. S255839
Case decided 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.