In re Brittany K

17 Citing cases

  1. In re Brittany K.

    127 Cal.App.4th 1497 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 358 times
    Affirming a permanent restraining order requiring a grandmother to stay away from her grandchildren based on substantial evidence that the grandmother was molesting and stalking the children

    We decline to grant the request for judicial notice of this material on that basis. The other material of which appellant seeks judicial notice basically consists of the appellate record in the earlier appeal, previously decided in No. A094158. ( In re Brittany K. (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 805.) This material has already been considered by this court in making our decision in that appeal, and is of no relevance or materiality to the issues currently before us.

  2. L.A. Cnty. Dep't of Children & Family Servs. v. Ar.M. (In re A.M.)

    B309354 (Cal. Ct. App. May. 25, 2021)

    Father recognizes that if the commissioner sat as a temporary judge, the commissioner would have the same authority as a judge. In re Brittany K. supports father's acknowledgment; it states: " '[a] temporary judge has full judicial powers, and his [or her] orders are as final and nonreviewable as those of a permanent judge.' [Citation.]" (In re Brittany K. (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 805, 812.) The powers of a referee, however, are more limited.

  3. In re Marriage of Wilson

    No. B217535 (Cal. Ct. App. Jun. 29, 2010)

    “This failure to make a timely objection was tantamount to an implied waiver of the required stipulation that the matter be heard by the commissioner sitting as a temporary judge.” (In re Brittany K. (2003) 96 Cal.App.4th 805, 813-814.) Although the record on appeal does not include the documents constituting the stipulation to Commissioner Axel acting as a temporary judge in this matter, the minute order for the July 7, 2008, hearing recites that the parties had “stipulated that Robert B. Axel may hear this matter as Judge Pro Tempore for this hearing and all future hearings.”

  4. In re X.V.

    132 Cal.App.4th 794 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 91 times
    Holding that parents forfeited a second appeal to challenge ICWA notice defects where neither parent raised any objection to the adequacy of the ICWA notices at the special hearing on remand for the specific purpose of assessing the adequacy of notice

    We reject the Agency's contention Nancy's appeal is improper because she joined in Anthony's briefing. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 13(a)(5); In re Harmony B. (2005) 125 Cal.App.4th 831, 835 [ 23 Cal.Rptr.3d 207]; In re Alyssa F. (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 846, 850 [ 6 Cal.Rptr.3d 1]; In re Brittany K. (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 805, 808 [ 117 Cal.Rptr.2d 813].) (1) A judgment terminating parental rights is appealable under section 395, and our jurisdiction to review such a judgment is contingent on a timely notice of appeal.

  5. Dianne v. Sonoma County Human Services Department

    537 U.S. 1009 (2002)

    Ct. App. Cal., 1st App. Dist. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 96 Cal. App. 4th 805, 117 Cal. Rptr. 2d 813.

  6. Ellen v. Sonoma County Human Services Department

    537 U.S. 1009 (2002)

    Ct. App. Cal., 1st App. Dist. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 96 Cal. App. 4th 805, 117 Cal. Rptr. 2d 813.

  7. Koosemans v. Siskiyou Joint Cmty. Coll.

    2:17-cv-00809-TLN-DMC (E.D. Cal. Aug. 20, 2021)   Cited 2 times
    Applying California law

    A court commissioner who sits as a temporary judge has “full judicial powers” and his or her orders “are as final and nonreviewable as those of a permanent judge.” In re Brittany K., 96 Cal.App.4th 805, 812 (2002) (quoting In re Mark L., 34 Cal.3d 171, 178 (1983)). Commissioner Bicego therefore exercised all the powers of a superior court judge in the writ proceeding.

  8. Orange Cnty. Child Support Servs. v. Aula

    No. E077510 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 14, 2023)

    Moreover, he asked her for a continuance, which she granted; after that, he could not withdraw or revoke his stipulation. (In re Brittany K. (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 805, 813; In re Steven A. (1993) 15 Cal.App.4th 754, 767-770.)

  9. People v. Tye

    G051003 (Cal. Ct. App. Sep. 27, 2016)

    The stipulation of the parties is a constitutional and jurisdictional requirement. (In re Brittany K. (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 805, 813.) In the absence of an express or implied stipulation to a commissioner, the order or judgment issued by that commissioner is void.

  10. In re Alison P.

    No. B255277 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 17, 2014)

    This is because the purpose of dependency proceedings is to protect the child, "not to prosecute the parents." (In re Roderick U. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 1543, 1552; see also In re Carina C. (1990) 218 Cal.App.3d 617, 624 [dependency proceeding is "civil in nature, designed not to prosecute the parents but to protect the child"]; accord In re Brittany K. (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 805, 816, fn. 30.) Even if the juvenile court were to order the allegations dismissed with prejudice, there would be no bar to DCFS filing another section 300 petition if new allegations or new evidence were to arise.