CA Unpub Decisions

In 2023, Alberto Javier Elias Fernandez rented a college textbook from Everytext.com, LLC (Everytext). Afterwards, Fernandez allegedly became concerned that the textbook would not be delivered and instructed his credit card company to cancel payment. After the credit card company charged back the payment, Everytext allegedly sent Fernandez a series of messages threatening, among other things, to initiate legal proceedings, to damage his

Janice Fox appeals from a judgment following an order sustaining a demurrer in favor of respondents Theodore Fox (Ted), Ultimate Action, LLC (UA), Supreme Studios, LLC (Supreme Studios), TF Properties #2, LLC (TF #2), and TF Properties #3, LLC (TF #3), in a financial elder abuse action under the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act (the Elder Abuse Act; Welf. & Inst. Code, § 15600, et seq.) on behalf of her deceased moth

Erika A. (mother) appeals from a juvenile court judgment declaring her children A.C. (born April 2013) and Ay.C. (born May 2016) dependents of the court.1 ****** The juvenile court declared A.C. and Ay.C. dependents of the court on December 4, 2025, based on mother and Armando C.’s (father) history of drug and alcohol use. The court removed the children from the parents’ custody. On appeal, mother challenges the juvenile court’s finding

In this juvenile delinquency case, A.T. pleaded no contest to a charge that he forcibly raped his then-11-year-old cousin, in violation of Penal Code section 261, subdivision (a)(2). As part of the disposition, the trial court imposed a probation condition prohibiting A.T. from having unsupervised contact with minors. In this appeal, A.T. argues that, by restricting his contact with his younger sisters, the probation condition violates

Robert W. (Father) appeals from the juvenile court’s denial of his petition under section 388 of the Welfare and Institutions Code. (Unlabeled statutory references are to this code.) He contends that the juvenile court and San Bernardino County Children and

The juvenile court asserted dependency jurisdiction over Brianna S. and Abigail S., who at that time were 13 and eight years old, respectively, based on K.N.’s (mother’s) history of mental and emotional problems and her inability to care for the children. The court removed the children from mother and Trent S. (father) and ordered the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS or the agency) to provide reunifica

‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗ Appellant J.C. (father) appeals from juvenile court jurisdictional findings within dispositional orders sustaining a petition filed under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300.1 We affirm the orders.

In July 2025, appellant Rebecca C. (Mother) gave birth to twin girls. Mother and both twins tested positive for methamphetamine. Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) detained the twins from Mother and their father, Raphael C. (Father C.), placing the children with a maternal aunt. One month later, DCFS filed a Welfare and Institutions Code1 section 300 petition on behalf of the twins, alleging that Mother

In re Izaiah W., a Minor. Ruth D. et al., A174110 Plaintiffs and Respondents, (Solano County v. Super. Ct. No. AD2300020)

C.R. (mother) appeals from the juvenile court’s disposition orders denying her family reunification services with respect to minor K.T. (born May 2025) under Welfare and Institutions Code section 361.5, subdivision (b)(10)(A).1 Mother contends there is insufficient evidence to support the court’s finding she failed to make reasonable efforts to address the mental health and substance abuse problems that led to the removal of minor’s old