Month: November 2017

Cal. Supreme Court Says ‘No-Fault” Parents Can Lose Custody

The California Supreme Court said dependency judges may take children away from parents who cannot supervise or protect their children — even if the parents are not to blame.

Settling a split of authority in In re. R.T., the court ruled the state’s Welfare and Institutions Code authorizes dependency jurisdiction without a finding that a parent is at fault or blameworthy for a failure or inability to supervise or protect a child.

“When that child’s behavior places her at substantial risk of serious physical harm, and a parent is unable to protect or supervise that child, the juvenile court’s assertion of jurisdiction is authorized under section 300(b)(1),” Justice Goodwin Liu wrote in a concurring opinion to invite the Legislature to revisit the issue.

Mom’s Secret Recording of Babysitter’s Abuse OK, Court Rules

One mother’s disturbing discovery has led a California appellate court to distinguish the rules on when secret recordings are permissible. Although California is one of the few “all-party consent” states, meaning everyone who is audio recorded must consent to being recorded, there are a few exceptions to that rule.

One of the main exceptions to the “all-party consent” rule allows a person to obtain evidence of a violent felony, extortion, bribery, or kidnapping via a secret recording. However, at issue in the In Re: Trever P. case isn’t whether a person involved in the conversation can make a secret recording, but rather, whether a parent can consent on behalf of their child and make a secret recording of the child and a babysitter.

Prop. 66 Ruling: Death Penalty Appeal Time Limit Not Enforceable

In November 2016, California voters passed Proposition 66 which sought to speed up the time between a death penalty conviction and sentence and the actual execution. Most notably, Prop. 66 imposed a mandatory five-year deadline for the California courts to finish a capital appeal. Almost immediately after passing, opponents filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the proposition, and specifically, that five-year deadline.

After reviewing the challenge, the California Supreme Court issued their ruling, in Briggs v. Brown, effectively striking down the five-year deadline (at least for the time being), while upholding other portions of the proposition.