News

Case Summaries

Entertainment

Read More

Family Law

[02/03] In re Gabriel K.
On appeal from an order of the juvenile court declaring minors to be dependent children and denying the request of their mother for reunification services, the order is affirmed, where: 1) the juvenile court's denial of further reunification services to the mother for her younger son was consistent with the legislative intent and thus, fell within the spirit of the reunification services statute; 2) the evidence before the juvenile court supported its conclusion that the mother failed to make reasonable efforts to treat her drug issues; and 3) the mother demonstrated no basis for setting aside the juvenile court's decision to deny reunification services.

[02/02] Southerland v. City of New York
In a suit under 42 USC Section 1983 asserting that a New York City children's services caseworker entered the plaintiffs' home unlawfully and effected an unconstitutional removal of children into state custody, the district court's grant of summary judgment to the defendant caseworker is: 1) affirmed with respect to the dismissal of the father's substantive due process claim; but 2) vacated with respect to the father's and his children's Fourth Amendment unlawful-search and Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process claims and the children's unlawful-seizure claim, where the district court wrongfully concluded that the caseworker was entitled to qualified immunity with respect to all of the claims against him.

[02/02] Marriage of Walker
In a family court proceeding in which the recipient of a California State Teachers' Retirement System (CalSTRS) disability allowance challenged earlier family court orders awarding a community property interest in the allowance to his former spouse, the family court's denial of the appellant's motion to set aside the earlier orders is reversed, where the family court erred as a matter of law in concluding that the recipient had made "no mistake" in agreeing that his spouse had a community property interest in his disability allowance and thus should not have denied his motion on this basis.

Read More