Joyce G. v. Superior Court

109 Citing cases

  1. Maribel M. v. Superior Court

    61 Cal.App.4th 1469 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998)   Cited 19 times

    "Finally, subdivision ( l)(4) of section 366.26 states it is the Legislature's intent to `achieve a substantive and meritorious [ sic] review by the appellate court' within the 120-day time limit specified in sections 366.21 and 366.22, and to `[e]ncourage the appellate court to determine all [such] writ petitions . . . on their merits.'" ( Joyce G. v. Superior Court (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 1501, 1507-1508 [ 45 Cal.Rptr.2d 805], fns. omitted.) In its entirety, subdivision ( l) of section 366.26 reads: "(1) An order by the court that a hearing pursuant to this section be held is not appealable at any time unless all of the following applies: [¶] (A) A petition for extraordinary writ review was filed in a timely manner.

  2. Glen C. v. Superior Court

    78 Cal.App.4th 570 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000)   Cited 340 times
    In Glen C. v. Superior Court, supra, 78 Cal.App.4th at page 585, the court held that it was a father's burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he was a presumed father.

    nial of petition that listed complaints but was filed before record and did not contain specific legal or factual support]; Nahid H. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 1051, 1056 [recognizing discretion to summarily dismiss a "meager" petition unaccompanied by points and authorities but choosing to entertain merits because of risk of "grave injustice" on facts]; Cheryl S. v. Superior Court, supra, 51 Cal.App.4th at p. 1005 [announcing intention to dismiss as inadequate any rule 39.1B petition that does not "summarize the particular factual bases supporting the petition," "refer to specific portions of the record," "relate the facts to the grounds alleged as error," "note disputed aspects of the record," and "have attached to it a particularized memorandum of points and authorities"]; Cresse S. v. Superior Court, supra, 50 Cal.App.4th at p. 956 [announcing intention to dismiss inadequate petitions "unless good cause is shown and a conforming petition supplants the defective one"]; Joyce G. v. Superior Court (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 1501, 1512 [deeming untimely filing of a petition, failure to "tender and `substantively' to address a specific material issue or issues," and failure to provide an adequate record to be "`exceptional circumstances' within the meaning of rule 39.1B(m) which excuse the court from reviewing and determining a petition on the merits"].) Some courts have further opted for summary denial on the merits of petitions that are procedurally adequate but fail to present meaningful argument, if the reviewing court does not find that the issue raised by the petition is arguable.

  3. San Joaquin Cnty. Health & Human Servs. Agency v. S.T. (In re A. J.)

    C086190 (Cal. Ct. App. Sep. 26, 2018)

    Appellant asserts that she may raise issues arising from the 12-month review hearing because she filed a petition for extraordinary writ pursuant to rule 8.452, which was denied summarily on the merits. (Joyce G. v. Superior Court (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 1501 (Joyce G.).) Only the first contention, however, is cognizable.

  4. John F. v. Superior Court

    43 Cal.App.4th 400 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996)   Cited 47 times
    In John F. v. Superior Court (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 400, the parent timely and properly filed a notice of intent to file writ petition pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 39.1(B) and pursued the remedy.

    This assertion is incorrect. The failure to file a writ petition challenging the findings made at a hearing at which the matter is set for a section 366.26 hearing only precludes raising issues regarding those findings upon an appeal from the order at the section 366.26 hearing; it does not also preclude the appeal of an order terminating parental rights entered at the section 366.26 hearing. ( Joyce G. v. Superior Court (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 1501, 1507-1508, fn. 3 [ 45 Cal.Rptr.2d 805].) A party may seek review of the findings and order made at the hearing at which the matter is set for a section 366.26 hearing by petition for extraordinary writ, and, if the petition is summarily denied, may obtain a second review of the findings and order on appeal from the order entered at the section 366.26 hearing. (§ 366.26, subd. ( l).)

  5. Yolo Cnty. Health & Human Servs. Agency v. R.C. (In re A.C.)

    No. C093821 (Cal. Ct. App. Jul. 22, 2022)   Cited 2 times

    Appellant contends that she may raise issues arising from the 18-month review hearing because she filed a petition for extraordinary writ pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.452, which was denied summarily on the merits. (Joyce G. v. Superior Court (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 1501 (Joyce G.).)

  6. In re R.S.

    No. C087456 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 2, 2019)

    Mother first asserts she may raise issues arising from the 12-month review hearing because she filed a petition for extraordinary writ pursuant to rule 8.452 that was denied summarily on the merits. (Joyce G. v. Superior Court (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 1501 (Joyce G.).) We agree, with one exception.

  7. In re C.A.

    C076721 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 20, 2015)

    The petition was summarily denied on the merits, preserving mother's revival in this appeal of the issues previously tendered. (Joyce G. v. Superior Court (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 1501, 1513 (Joyce G.).) Mother also argues insufficient evidence supports the juvenile court's findings sustaining the four allegations ultimately contained in the section 387 petition that: 1) mother was allowing contact between the minors and D.W., a registered sex offender and the father of A.A.; 2) mother was continuing in substance abuse treatment but her counselor reported some issues; 3) mother was incapable of keeping a safe home for the minors; and 4) mother had not been adequately supervising the minors.

  8. Sutter Cnty. Dep't of Human Servs. v. Jesse C. (In re Elizabeth C.)

    C069854 (Cal. Ct. App. Sep. 25, 2012)

    The court denied further services to the parents and set a section 366.26 hearing to select a permanent plan for the minors. Appellant filed a petition for extraordinary writ which was summarily denied on the merits pursuant to Joyce G. v. Superior Court (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 1501, 1513-1514. The sole issue raised in the skeletal petition was: "There was substantial evidence that the children could be safely returned to Petitioner at the hearing."

  9. In re B.C.

    No. C057323 (Cal. Ct. App. May. 21, 2008)

    Instead, she asserts issues she contends were raised in her petition for extraordinary writ which was filed after the section 366.26 hearing was set. “Subsequent appellate review of findings subsumed in an order setting a section 366.26 hearing is dependent upon an antecedent petition for writ review of those findings having been ‘summarily denied . . . .’” (Joyce G. v. Superior Court (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 1501, 1513; § 366.26, subd. (l).) Appellant did file such a petition which was summarily denied on the merits in case No. C055937. When “the denial is summary, the petitioner retains his or her appellate remedy (§ 366.26, subd. (l)(1)(C)) but is limited to the same issue on the same record (§ 366.26, subd. (l)(1)(B)) and thus is destined on appeal to receive the same result.”

  10. Yolo Cnty. of Health & Human Servs. Agency v. R.C. (In re Z.C.)

    No. C094803 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 3, 2025)

    First, we briefly address mother's contention that she may raise issues arising from the 12-month review hearing in this appeal because she filed a petition for extraordinary writ pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.452, which was denied summarily on the merits. (R.C. v. Superior Court of Yolo County (C093790, petn. den. May 13, 2021); Joyce G. v. Superior Court (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 1501 (Joyce G.).) We take judicial notice of the court file in that proceeding, case No. C093790.