Jump To Navigation
Legal News

Case Summaries

Family Law

[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.

[02/02] Marriage of Wahl
On appeal from an order requiring an ex-wife to pay to her former husband $552,153.28 in attorney's fees and costs as a sanction because of her conduct with respect to two post-dissolution orders, the order is affirmed, where the record disclosed no abuse of discretion in the trial court's award, and additional sanctions are imposed against the appellant and her appellate attorneys on a finding that the appeal is frivolous.

[01/31] T.W. v. Superior Court (San Diego County Health and Human Servs. Agency)
In proceedings in mandate to review an order designating the specific placement of a dependent child after termination of parental rights, the petition is granted with directions, where the district court abused its discretion by denying a petition by the San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency to remove the child from the home of his prospective adoptive parent, because the district court did not give appropriate weight to the legislature's goal of securing an adoptive home for a dependent child that is free from the influences of criminal activity and substance abuse.

[01/26] Tracy J. v. Superior Court
On a petition by developmentally disabled parents for review of juvenile court orders terminating family reunification services and setting a hearing under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26, the petition is granted and a writ of mandate is issued, where the parents did not receive reasonable family reunification services from the San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency, which unreasonably limited visitation services.

[01/19] E.C. v. J.V.
On a petition to establish a parental relationship with a minor, the trial court's order finding, that the appellant had failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that she was a presumed parent under the Uniform Parentage Act (UPA), is reversed and remanded, where: 1) the trial court misapplied the UPA to the facts of the case by considering facts irrelevant to determining the appellant's commitment to the minor; and 2) it was necessary to remand the matter to allow the trial court to exercise its discretion with a clear understanding of the law and determine whether the appellant held out the minor to be her natural child.

[01/18] In re Marriage of Hill and Dittmer
In a dissolution of marriage proceeding in which the wife challenged the validity of a prenuptial agreement and sought discovery of the nature and value of the husband's assets, the trial court's order finding the agreement valid is affirmed, where: 1) substantial evidence supported the trial court's finding of validity; 2) amendments to Family Code section 1615 did not apply retroactively; and 3) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for additional discovery.

[01/12] In re Ashley B.
In an appeal from a Welfare & Institutions Code section 360(d) jurisdictional and dependency order of the juvenile court, order is upheld where the court correctly invoked Section 300(j) jurisdiction based on the circumstances leading to the death of dependent's her three-month-old brother

[01/11] R.T. v. Superior Court (Shasta County Health And Human Servs. Agency)
In a writ challenge to the trial court's order terminating reunification services and parental rights, petition is denied where petitioner's effort to treat her chronic substance abuse problems did not constitute a "reasonable effort" such that the bypass provisions of Welfare and Institutions Code sections 361.5 (b)(10) and (b)(11) were rendered inapplicable to her in evaluating her child's case.

[01/11] Saraswati v. Co. of San Diego
In an appeal from a judgment of the trial court denying petitioner's writ challenge to defendant's determination that allegations of child abuse against him were inconclusive rather than unfounded, judgment is reversed where the court erred in applying a "substantial evidence" standard of review instead of an "independent judgment" standard.

[01/05] Marriage of Sorge
In an appeal from a judgment of the trial court modifying a child support award and imposing sanctions with an award of attorney's fees, judgment is reversed where the fiduciary duty to disclose material changes in income ends upon entry of a divorce decree, but affirmed otherwise.

[01/04] Jennifer R. v. Superior Court (San Diego County Health and Human Servs. Agency)
In a challenge to the juvenile court's order terminating reunification services and setting a Section 366.26 permanency planning hearing, order is vacated where the finding that the County Health and Human Services Agency offered or provided reasonable family reunification services to petitioner-mother with a history of drug abuse and domestic violence is not supported by substantial evidence.

[12/29] Garcia v. USICE (Dept. of Homeland Security)
In a case seeking removal of a lawful permanent resident who asserted that he obtained US citizenship as a minor in the custody of his naturalized father after divorce, the district court's denial of habeas corpus relief is vacated and the case is remanded to the district court for a hearing on which parent had "actual uncontested custody," where the district court erred in relying on an unenforceable custody award from the Dominican Republic.

More...

Did you know?

Did you know that Kirsh & Kirsh, P.C., has recycling guidelines for its office, including paper, glass, plastic, and aluminum? Kirsh & Kirsh, P.C., even uses cloth towels by their sinks to keep paper out of landfills and high efficiency light bulbs to save energy. Kirsh & Kirsh, P.C., is always looking at ways to be greener, including means to offset carbon emissions. Socially, Kirsh & Kirsh, P.C., has donated a portion of profits for many years to adoption support networks and other facilities helping with community needs.

Contact Us

Kirsh & Kirsh, P. C.
2930 E. 96th Street
Indianapolis, IN 46240-3716
Telephone: 317-575-5555
Toll Free: 866-469-9200
Fax: 317-575-5631 E-mail Us