Family Law Cases
Show: 1 day 1 week 1 month All
Custom (decided): –
Coverage since February 24, 2026

Family Law

Uncategorized

In re I.W., San Bernardino County Children and Family Services v. T.W. and W.Z., Jr. — Juvenile Court Properly Denied Criminal Defendant’s Attorney’s Petition for Access to Minor’s Dependency File

The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the juvenile court’s denial of a criminal defense attorney’s petition on behalf of his client to access a minor’s confidential dependency case file, holding the appeal failed on three independent grounds: the appellant challenged only th

Uncategorized

In re A.T., The People v. A.T., A174081 (Cal. Ct. App., 1st Dist., Div. 5, Oct. 30, 2026) — Juvenile court properly required adult supervision for a ward’s contact with his minor sisters

The First District Court of Appeal affirmed a juvenile disposition requiring adult supervision for A.T.’s contact with minors, including his younger sisters, because his concealed abuse of a young cousin supported child-protection and rehabilitation interests while supervised family contact re

Uncategorized

In re Steven T., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law — Court of Appeal Affirms Six-Month Review Order Reducing Baseline Term and Denying Unsupervised Outings After Wende Review

The First Appellate District, Division Four, affirmed a juvenile court’s fourth six-month review order under Welfare and Institutions Code section 875, which reduced Steven T.’s baseline confinement term by three months, denied his request for unsupervised community outings, and authoriz

Uncategorized

In re Jayden J., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law; The People v. Jayden J. — Dispositional order committing youth to secure youth treatment facility affirmed; STRTP eligibility question left unresolved

The First District affirmed a dispositional order committing Jayden J. to a secure youth treatment facility, holding that any error about his age-based STRTP eligibility was forfeited and that substantial evidence supported the juvenile court’s rejection of less restrictive placements.

Scroll to Top