CA Unpub Decisions

* * * Andrea Blackman appeals the trial court’s judgment denying her petition of writ of mandate regarding overpayment of unemployment insurance benefits between March and August 2020. The Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board (UIAB) determined Blackman was ineligible for benefits under Unemployment Insurance Code1 sections 1252 and 1279. It also found she was properly assessed penalties because she made willfully false statements in con

Adan Fugfugosh appeals the superior court’s order declining to modify his child support payments to respondent Lynn Ariyadej. Fugfugosh, representing himself, argues the trial court abused its discretion by: (1) failing to determine Ariyadej’s income or earning capacity; (2) failing to consider cost-of-living differences between Fugfugosh’s California residence and Ariyadej’s residence in Minnesota; and (3) relying on Fugfugosh’s tempor

In December 2023, defendant and appellant D.G. (appellant) was committed to a secure youth treatment facility (SYTF) after he admitted to carjacking (Pen. Code, § 215, subd. (a)).1 The juvenile court imposed a baseline term of four years, with a maximum term of 8 years 9 months. In December 2024, appellant was placed into a less restrictive program, and he absconded within the month. On January 30, 2025, he participated in the armed rob

Defendant and appellant J.B. (Mother) appeals the juvenile court’s jurisdictional findings and dispositional orders regarding her son, D.L. (Minor, born December 2012). Minor’s presumed father (Father, who shares the same initials as Minor) is not a party to

N.E. (Mother) appeals from the juvenile court’s order under Welfare and Institutions Code1 section 366.26 terminating her parental rights and identifying adoption as the permanent plan for her son Ethan E. (born August 2013). She argues the court erred in determining Ethan was adoptable, because there are legal impediments to his adoption by the two paternal aunts who were designated as his prospective adoptive parents. Finding no

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 This is an appeal from a denial of a petition to modify a child custody and visitation order in a case that was originally filed more than 18 years ago. Because the child who is the subject of the custody and visitation order is now over 18 years old, the issues on appeal are moot, and we therefore dismiss the appeal. Petitioner and appellant T.C. filed the present action—a petition to establish a parental relationsh

The juvenile court assumed jurisdiction over mother’s and father’s two children and at the dispositional hearing, ordered them placed into paternal aunt’s and paternal grandmother’s custody. The dispositional order also ordered monitored visitation for mother. On appeal, mother does not challenge the court’s assumption of jurisdiction based on father’s physical abuse. Instead, she argues no substantial evidence supports that

F.C. (Father), parent of minor X.C., appeals from the juvenile court’s order terminating parental rights and placing X.C. for adoption. (Welf. & Inst. Code,1 § 366.26.) Father contends (1) the record lacked clear and convincing evidence that the Sonoma County Human Services Department (Department) made active efforts to provide the parents with remedial services and rehabilitative programs designed to prevent the breakup of the Indian f

Mother, D.P., appeals from jurisdiction and disposition orders concerning her son, Z.W., Jr. (age 9). Mother contends the juvenile court violated her due process rights by amending the operative petition to conform to proof at the jurisdictional hearing. Mother further argues the court erred in sustaining an allegation against her under Welfare and Institutions Code1 section 300, subdivision (a) (section 300(a)), which concerns the prot

I. INTRODUCTION David and Debra Lindgren1 sued Dr. Angela A. Chang for medical malpractice and loss of consortium. A jury found in Dr. Chang’s favor, determining that she did not breach her duty of care. On appeal, Debra, who has been substituted in David’s place after his death, asserts the trial court failed to instruct the jury properly. She claims that in addition to ordinary medical negligence, the trial court should have instructe