Is spanking a child, even with a shoe, child abuse? Not always, according to the California Court of Appeals, which recently reversed a juvenile court’s finding that a mother’s sandal-aided spanking was physical abuse. The categorical view that “hitting children with shoes” is forbidden physical abuse and “not a proper form of discipline” isn’t supported by the law, the court found.

But don’t get out the belt just yet, disciplinarians. The court’s ruling is hardly an invitation to spank your children with impunity. Here’s why.

As family law practitioners know, dividing property during a separation is rarely a straightforward matter. Things become significantly more complicated when there are pensions and retirement benefits involved. The prolonged process of splitting up retirement assets requires a complex kind of calculus, one that can frustrate even the most seasoned practitioners.

Thankfully, you don’t have to handle these tricky issues alone. The Rutter Group’s upcoming Dividing Pension and Retirement Benefits program is there to help you navigate these complex issues.

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.

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.

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.