X.K. v. M.C. It is error to deny a request for a DVRO because the abuse occurred in the context of a dispute involving custody or visitation, or both.

Marriage of R.K. & G.K. In the absence of a court record (e.g. reporter), there is a presumption that each finding is supported by the evidence. A request for joint custody and visitation is sufficient notice that custody is at issue, and the court may award sole custody. It is not a move away case if the court is ordering the child returned to where the child originally lived, and the parent never obtained permission to move in the first place. A judge does not need to find “compelling circumstances” to separate step-siblings.

Michael K. v. Cho. Attorney’s comments in response to Husband’s credit charge dispute were protected by the litigation privilege.

Yu v. Pozniak-Rice. Before substituted service of a request for a CHRO will be granted, protected party must allege facts (not simply conclusions) to support diligent efforts employed to locate and serve the restrained party.

In re Bradshaw. “Harm” is not required for a finding an attorney breached his/her fiduciary duty and engaged in a scheme to defraud a trust. Misrepresentations, breach, and scheme to defraud supported disbarment despite lack of actual harm to the trust.

In re L.M. The statute allowing visitation between a minor who is a dependent of the state and his/her non-dependent sibling is not per se unconstitutional.

In re E.G. Trial courts are given a lot of deference with regard to their determination of the credibility of both the evidence and the witnesses. When challenging the sufficiency of the evidence, it is not enough to show the trial court could have made a different decision, must show there was no substantial evidence to support the finding. For siblings, under WIC 300(j), the more severe the abuse, the lower the required probability of the child’s experiencing such abuse to conclude a substantial risk of abuse. Siblings need not personally observe the sexual abuse for the court to exercise its jurisdiction under WIC 300(j).

In re C.R. The Court could reasonably conclude there was no reason to duplicate ICWA inquiry efforts as to mother’s side when Department and the court recently (one year prior) conducted an ICWA inquiry in a dependency action in which mother was the dependent, and found IWCA did not apply.

In re Hunter V. If jurisdictional allegations are changed during the hearing, that requires additional notice to a parent who is not present. Imprisoned parents have a right to be present, and the court erred in proceeding in Father’s absence.

Steshenko v. Bd. of Trustees. An order finding a litigant to be a vexatious litigant and requiring the litigant to follow prefiling orders remains in effect while the finding is on appeal.

P. v. Superior Court (Broadway). 170.6

Wing Inflatables v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's. 60 days to file an appeal does not commence with electronic service unless a signed certificate of service is attached to, stamped on, or imbedded in the document being electronically served so the time to appeal can readily be determined from a single document

Egelston v. State Personnel Bd. Res Judicata does not apply to a judicial decision made “without prejudice”, which is not a decision on the merits and leaves the whole subject in litigation and open to another action.

Estate of Boyajian. There are only two ways to revoke a will under Probate Code §6120: Create a new one with a revocation; or the testator personally, or directs another, to burn, tear, cancel, obliterate, or destroy, with the intent and for the purpose of revoking it. “Cancel” means to criss-cross out the old will. Simply signing a document revoking the old will is insufficient without new terms.