M.P. v. M.C. Expanded the “Child Dependency Hearsay Exception” to allow courts to admit into evidence, in DVPA cases, otherwise reliable out-of-court statements made by a minor alleging sexual abuse even when the statements do not fit into a traditional hearsay exception.

Marriage of Patel. Under Family Code §2345, the Court has authority to dismiss a Petition for Legal Separation when one party states that he or she does not consent to a Judgment of Legal Separation.

Pham v. Superior Court. If there is an enforceable agreement between the parties for the disposition of the embryos upon divorce, the court should enforce it even if a party no longer wishes to become a parent with the other party.

Rinker v. Rinker. A party seeking a restraining order is not required to show that the restrained party intended to commit the acts of abuse.

Vergara v. Ouse. A supervisor who suspends a visit is protected, under quasi-judicial immunity, against litigation for suspending the visits.

Houser v. Superior Court. A party cannot be found in contempt for violating joint legal custody unless the order specifically requires joint consent for the decision the parent made. Absent an explicit requirement for joint consent, either party can make a decision for a child. A party cannot be found in contempt of an order prohibiting a parent from scheduling activities during the other parent’s custodial time if the parent simply authorized a child to participate in activity. The activity provider, and not the parent, is doing the scheduling.

In re S.R. An appeal of a jurisdictional finding is not “moot” if the finding of abuse or neglect is such that an agency is required to report it to be included in the Child Abuse Control Index.

In re K.G. The department satisfied its duty of inquiry under ICWA by inquiring with everyone with him the agency came into contact as part of their regular work. The 2nd District does not require the agency / department to make additional inquiries with individuals with whom they did not come into contact as part of their regular work.

MacDonald v. Zargaryan. Court erred in allowing a late-noticed expert to testify without the attorney filing a motion for leave to amend the original expert witness disclosure. Late disclosure causes unfair surprise, even if the other party is afforded a chance to depose the expert.

Shayan v. Shakib. Another AI case.

Rodriquez v. WNT, Inc.. Comparison of facts supporting mandatory vs. discretionary relief under CCP §473(b).

Allen v. Patel. Attorney misconduct is an irregularity in the proceedings and a ground for a new trial under CCP §657.

Honchariw v. PMF CA REIT. When an attorney represents him/herself (in pro per) in litigation and his/her spouse, neither can recover attorneys fees when the litigation a community interest. The attorneys’ spouse’s time is a community asset that is being employed to protect the community entity.