ONCALL
...Family Law
......Custody and Visitation
 43 Cards On This Topic:
  • Family court erred in finding father rebutted the FC §3044 DV presumption, and failing to state in writing or on the record its reasons in making such a finding, erroneously denying mother sole custody.
  • Traditional surrogacy agreements are not required to be in writing.
  • Because E failed to assess how C would feel if parental contact ceased, court justifiably dismissed her conclusions, and court's criticism that her opinions were based on studies, not facts, was supported by the evidence.
  • The mere fact that the trial court issued rulings adverse to a party, even assuming one or more of those rulings was erroneous, does not indicate an appearance of bias, much less actual bias.
  • Genetic testing is not the only method to prove parentage for the crime of incest.
  • Parenting laws do not allow sperm donor F to ignore the consequences of a final adoption order, which gave the child's legal parents, not the courts, the right to decide whether and with whom she spends her time.
  • FC §3044 implicates fundamental constitutional rights.
  • The FC §3044 presumption is triggered whenever an ROAH issues — even when it’s the product of a stipulation.
  • Court need not address FC §3044 in a DVRO proceeding when the parties request to separately address custody.
  • The FC §3044 presumption affects joint legal as well as joint physical custody.
  • Trial courts have discretion under FC §3022 and FC §3100 (a) to enter temporary visitation orders if the party made a preliminary showing they are a presumed parent and the order is in the best interests of C.
  • Inadequate Cal-ICWA inquiry requires conditional reversal of order terminating parental rights, with directions to conduct an adequate inquiry, supported by record documentation.
  • Error to revoke psychologist's license for evaluating children for suicidality without father's consent where it was an emergency evaluation.
  • F forfeited claim the court improperly delegated its visitation authority to Cs, who refused to visit F, by failing to raise it at numerous hearings.
  • Error to grant noncustodial H's request for an order directing W to send Cs to public school where he did not show a significant change in circumstances warranting a change to joint custody.
  • The opinion of a sexual abuse expert per FC §3118 is not the ••only•• evidence that can support a finding of sexual abuse.
  • Trial court not required to follow expert opinion.
  • 11-yr.-old was entitled to hire her own atty in DVRO proceeding that was separate from court-appointed Minor's Counsel in parents' divorce.
  • In allocating costs of a court-appointed custody evaluator, court must consider the parties' ability to pay, whether evaluator is appointed by the court under EC §730 or under Family Code.
  • No abuse of discretion in ordering COVID-19 vaccination for 12-yr.-old dependent in group home and denying mother's W&IC §388 petition based on her religious objections.
  • Abuse of discretion to grant sole physical custody to mother without an express finding that it would be in Cs' best interests—exit order must serve the best interests of Cs, not penalize F for failing to comply with the case plan.
  • Abuse of discretion to order Cs to participate with H in therapy program with no contact with W for 90 days where H presented no evidence of changed circumstances and court denied best interest evidentiary hearing.
  • The §3044 presumption applies only if there has been DV five years from when the Court is making its findings—not from the date the RFO is filed.
  • School district requirement that students be vaccinated against COVID-19 in order to attend in-person classes and extracurricular activities was preempted by state law.
  • Failure to state on the record the reasons the §3044 presumption has been rebutted is error; doctrine of implied findings does not apply.
  • Sanctions for improperly disclosing confidential custody report may be applied to attorneys as well as parties.
  • Meeting properly recorded where DVRO gave DV victim permission to record communications and where restrained party's attorney was aware of the order.
  • Court cannot find DV and then order de facto joint custody without making express findings the section 3044 presumption has been rebutted.
  • De Facto joint physical custody defined.
  • Court-appointed counsel for children may make “recommendations” to the trial court regarding custody, visitation, and other issues relevant to their client’s interests.
  • The overarching duty in a move-away case is to make an order which is in the child’s best interests.
  • A petition for a third party independent adoption is not governed by Fam. Code §7612 (c).
  • Out-of-state DVRO triggers §3044 rebuttable presumption against joint custody.
  • A Kelsey S. father is not entitled to third parent status where there is no preexisting father-child relationship.
  • Criminal statute barring tracking devices on a vehicle is impermissibly vague when one registered owner consents to its use and the other is unaware of it.
  • ICWA does not apply when a child is removed from one parent and placed with the other.
  • Pen. Code §632.7 prohibits parties as well as nonparties from intentionally recording a cellular or cordless communications without the consent of all parties to the communication.
  • A communication must be protected if ••either•• party reasonably expects the communication to be confined to the parties.
  • The federal SCA creates a private cause of action for intentionally accessing without authorization another's stored ESI.
  • Video meetings are not an adequate substitute for meeting in person, especially for young children.
  • Family court and juvenile court serve different purposes.
  • Social workers violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment when they sexually harass private individuals while providing them social service.
  • Juvenile court has jurisdiction to order vaccinations over parents’ objections and to invalidate a medical exemption letter.


    •