Legal News...


Parental Rights

Following a determination that the juvenile court abused its discretion in terminating a father's parental rights, the court remanded for the juvenile court to consider petitions for guardianship, which had be addressed (along with the question of custody) based on wholly different legal principles, such as those embodied in Fam C §§ 3040 and 3041. In re Baby Girl M., A Minor (2006, 4th Dist) 135 Cal App 4th 1528, 38 Cal Rptr 3d 484.

When a trial court considered whether to terminate a natural father's parental rights under Prob C § 1516.5 on petition of the child's guardians, substantive due process under the federal and state constitutions required the trial court to determine whether or not the father had demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he had made a full commitment to his parental responsibilities; the appointment of guardians did not, under Prob C § 1514(a), and Fam C § 3041(a), equate to a finding of unfitness. In re Charlotte D. (2006, 2d Dist) 136 Cal App 4th 1027, 2006.




Community Property

Insurer was obligated to provide a defense to the wife of an insured business owner, even though the wife was not named in the underlying suit, because there was nevertheless a possibility, under community estate statutes, that she would become legally obligated to pay damages arising from the action; the family-owned business was community property because the couple purchased and operated it during their marriage. Therefore, the wife had standing to sue the insurer for breach of the duty to defend and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Century Sur. Co. v. Polisso (2006, 3d Dist) 139 Cal App 4th 922, 43 Cal Rptr 3d 468, 2006.

When a trial court considered whether to terminate a natural father's parental rights under Prob C § 1516.5 on petition of the child's guardians, substantive due process under the federal and state constitutions required the trial court to determine whether or not the father had demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he had made a full commitment to his parental responsibilities; the appointment of guardians did not, under Prob C § 1514(a), and Fam C § 3041(a), equate to a finding of unfitness. In re Charlotte D. (2006, 2d Dist) 136 Cal App 4th 1027, 2006.