(Cal. App., Civil Procedure, Family Law) Trial court's denial of wife's motion to vacate an order restraining her from interfering with ex-husband's child custody time is affirmed as the restraining order is neither ambiguous nor overbroad.
June 24, 2010 3:00 AM
(Cal. App., Administrative Law, Family Law, Juvenile Law) In juvenile dependency proceedings, the juvenile court's visitation order is reversed and remanded as it unlawfully delegated the responsibility of whether or not the father's visitation would occur at all to the Sacramento County Department of Health and Human Services.
June 23, 2010 3:00 AM
(U.S. 1st Cir., Civil Procedure, Class Actions, Constitutional Law, Family Law, Government Law) In a class action lawsuit on behalf of foster care children who are under the legal custody of Rhode Island's Department of Children, Youth and Families (DCYF), claiming that systematic deficiencies in the state's child welfare and foster care systems deprived the plaintiffs of their rights under the U.S. Constitution and several federal statutes, district court's judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the Next Friends lacked capacity to sue on behalf of plaintiffs is reversed where: 1) the district court erred in finding that the state appointed guardians ad litem or CASA advocates precluded plaintiffs from filing suit by a Next Friend; 2) under the circumstances of the case, Rule 17(c) allows federal courts discretion to appoint a Next Friend to represent the children in federal court; and 3) the proposed Next Friends are suited to represent the children in this case.
June 19, 2010 3:00 AM
(U.S. 1st Cir., Civil Procedure, Family Law, Probate, Trusts & Estates, Tax Law) In a tax deficiency case, the judgment of the tax court is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) the tax court's judgment that all of the Citigroup shares were the separate property of the decedent for federal estate tax purposes and, thus, were includable in his gross taxable estate is affirmed, as the rule of De Nicols is that a change in marital domicile does not, in itself, effect a change in the marital property regime governing the spouses' rights in personal property acquired throughout the course of the marriage; but 2) the tax court's approbation of the late-filing penalty was in error and is therefore reversed.
June 18, 2010 3:00 AM
(Cal. App., Family Law, Juvenile Law) In the County Social Services Agency's appeal from a juvenile court's order denying the agency's motion to terminate the de facto parent status of respondent, and granting the application of respondent's partner for de facto parent status, the order is affirmed where: 1) the juvenile court had the authority to determine that respondent's conduct constituted serious physical abuse, but conclude that the single incident of misconduct found to have occurred did not rise to the level warranting termination of his de facto parent status; and 2) the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to terminate respondent's de facto parent status.
June 16, 2010 3:00 AM