In re Jonathan B.
California Court of Appeal
235 Cal. App. 4th 115 (2015)
- Written by Haley Gintis, JD
Facts
In 2006 Andrea S. and Richard S. married. In 2009 Richard violently punched Andrea. In 2013 Andrea and Richard separated. Andrea continued to allow Richard access to their three children. In May 2014, Richard took the children to a party. By the time Andrea picked the children up from the party, Richard was drunk. Andrea agreed to give Richard a ride home. During the ride, Richard became angry at Andrea and began pinching her neck and calling her names. Richard then punched Andrea in the face and slapped her. Andrea immediately drove to the police station with the children, who were upset by the incident. Once at the station, Andrea obtained an emergency restraining order against Richard for herself and the children. The Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (the department) then obtained a child-dependency action against Richard and Andrea for jurisdiction over the three children. Andrea appealed on the ground that the department had failed to introduce substantial evidence to support the dependency finding. The department argued that Andrea’s appeal was moot because, even if she were to win the appeal, the department would still have jurisdiction over the children due to the dependency action against Richard. The California Court of Appeal considered the case.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Lavin, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 804,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
