Case Summaries
Family Law
[05/16] Marriage of Green
In a dispute between ex-spouses over the husband's CalPERS pension, which included four years of credit for past military service purchased with community funds, the trial court's characterization of the credit as the husband's separate property is reversed, where prior to the marriage, the husband's right to the credit amounted to no more than an expectancy, which is not a property right divisible upon dissolution of marriage, since he held no unconditional, contractual right to the payment of benefits, or even a nonvested right to such credit, before he actually purchased the credit during the marriage, using community funds.
[05/15] In re A.S.
In juvenile court proceedings involving a brother and sister whose permanent plan called for them to be placed in foster care: 1) an order permitting the siblings to be placed separately is affirmed, and 2) an order approving an application to administer psychotropic medication to the boy is affirmed, as California Rules of Court, rule 5.640(c)(8) comports with due process.
[05/14] In re B.C.
In a case in which a man filed a JV-505 statement, requested genetic testing to determine whether he was a biological father, and filed a declaration stating that he wished to meet his paternal obligations, the Court of Appeal holds that under California Rules of Court 5.635 it was error for the juvenile court to have authorized testing but to have required the man to pay for it, and to have failed to make a determination of biological paternity.
[05/14] Southerland v. City of New York
In a suit by a father and his children under 42 USC section 1983 asserting that a children's services caseworker employed by the City of New York entered their home unlawfully and effected an unconstitutional removal of the children into state custody, a grant of summary judgment to the caseworker is: 1) affirmed with respect to the father's substantive due process claim, under the "brief removal" doctrine, but 2) vacated with respect to the father's and children's Fourth Amendment unlawful-search and Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process claims, and the children's Fourth Amendment unlawful-seizure claim.
[05/08] Matter of Damian G.
By memorandum, the court holds that determinations of neglect against the appellants were not supported by legally sufficient evidence.
[05/01] Matter of O.
By memorandum, an order of the Appellate Division is reversed, and the matter remitted to Family Court, where the Family Court erred by failing to hold a hearing on equitable estoppel after genetic testing was conducted.
