In re J.S.

107 Citing cases

  1. In re C.G.

    A151946 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 1, 2018)

    A juvenile court's decision regarding termination of jurisdiction is reviewed for abuse of discretion. (In re J.S. (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1069, 1082 (J.S.).) Under this standard, the " 'appropriate test . . . is whether the trial court exceeded the bounds of reason.

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

    No. B330384 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 5, 2024)

    For that reason the doctrine of implied findings may be given limited scope where an express finding is required." (In re J.S. (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1069, 1078.) "The same cannot be said, however, of another familiar barrier to appellate reversal: the rule of harmless error.

  3. Sonoma Cnty. Human Servs. Dep't v. Kelly S. (In re Charity C.)

    No. A157679 (Cal. Ct. App. Jun. 24, 2020)   Cited 1 times
    In Charity C. this Division addressed the same arguments and facts Mother presents here in support of reversal, and we see no reason to deviate from that conclusion with Minors.

    The juvenile court's failure to make the section 361.2(c) findings is significant. As explained in In re J.S. (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1069, 1078, such findings serve at least two purposes. First, they can influence the court's decision-making process by forcing it to confront and consider the relevant issues.

  4. Kern Cnty. Dep't of Human Servs. v. T.T. (In re Gregory A.)

    No. F078987 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 21, 2020)

    "Before any judgment can be reversed for [failure to make express findings under section 361.2, subdivision (c)], it must appear that the error ... 'has resulted in a miscarriage of justice.' (Cal. Const., art. VI, § 13.)" (In re J.S. (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1069, 1078 (J.S.).) An error is harmless if "it is not reasonably probable such findings, if made, would have" resulted in the outcome sought by the appellant.

  5. In re M.B.

    No. B287599 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 19, 2018)

    This was error. (See In re J.S. (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1069, 1078 ["[a]lthough the court made clear which option it was choosing, it failed to make any formal finding directed to this choice"].) The Department argues the court's finding that Joshua "had done nothing to resolve the domestic violence issues" supports the court's determination under section 361.2, subdivision (a).

  6. C.M. v. Superior Court of City of S.F.

    No. A152407 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 26, 2018)   Cited 1 times

    The court erred by setting a section 366.26 hearing for G.V. without making an express finding that Father "failed to participate regularly and make substantive progress in a court-ordered treatment plan." (§ 366.21, subd. (e)(3); see In re J.S. (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1069, 1071, 1077-1078 [failure to make a required finding under § 361.2 was error].) But we conclude the error was harmless because "we can see no reasonable probability that had the trial court complied with the statutory requirement, it would have answered differently the question whether to" set a section 366.26 hearing for G.V. (In re J.S., supra, 196 Cal.App.4th at p. 1079.)

  7. L.A. Cnty. Dep't of Children & Family Servs. v. Carlos M. (In re Lilah M.)

    No. B267080 (Cal. Ct. App. Jun. 22, 2016)

    Even if the juvenile court had erred in failing to expressly state the basis for its decision to retain jurisdiction, we would find any such error to be harmless. Father cites In re J.S. (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1069 (J.S.) in support of his argument that the error is not harmless. In J.S., a child removed from his mother's custody was placed with his father.

  8. In re P.S.

    No. C070378 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 9, 2013)

    In general, on appeal we "indulge all reasonable inferences favorable to the judgment." (Inre J.S. (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1069, 1078.) But, where the Legislature has required an explicit statement of reasons for a decision, this "doctrine becomes potentially subversive," depriving the Legislative requirement of force. (Ibid.)Thus, where the court is required to explicitly state the facts underlying its decision, "the doctrine of implied findings may be given limited scope."

  9. In re D.C.

    C069969 (Cal. Ct. App. Sep. 27, 2012)

    Thus, where the court is required to make express findings or an express statement of reasons, "the doctrine of implied findings may be given limited scope." (Inre J.S. (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1069, 1078.) Accordingly, in this case, we will not imply a statement of reasons.

  10. Steven H. v. The Superior Court

    No. A168556 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 7, 2023)

    As the Agency points out, the allegation in the supplemental petition that the court found true included the language: "The previous disposition has not been effective in the protection or rehabilitation of the child." Moreover, Father fails to allege any prejudice as to this claim and, on this record, we discern none since there was no dispute that Mother had relapsed and stopped engaging in services and the prior disposition had not been effective in protecting Minor. (In re J.S. (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1069, 1078 (J.S.) [applying Watson standard of harmless error].)