|
Family Law
Res judicata barred a child's biological father from asserting he qualified as a "Kelsey S. father" after he previously litigated the issue of whether he was the child's presumed father, even though the father argued a different legal theory of paternity in the prior proceedings, since both proceedings concerned the father's paternity status and the prior proceedings resulted in a final judgment on the merits. A judgment or order of the court determining the existence or nonexistence of a legal parent and child relationship is determinative for all purposes except for those brought under Penal Code Sec. 270. A biological father who does not have status as a presumed father also does not have "a claim to parentage" as required by Family Code Sec. 7612(c).
In re M.A. - filed Feb. 26, 2018, Fourth District, Div. Two
Cite as 2018 S.O.S. 949
Full text click here >
In determining whether to renew a restraining order against a parent, the trial court properly considered the facts and circumstances underlying the initial restraining order, violations of the restraining order, whether circumstances had changed, and the relative burden on the restrained parent if the restraining order was renewed. The fact that the parent requesting the order did not allege an apprehension of future physical abuse was irrelevant and did not mean that the court could not evaluate whether her fear of such abuse was reasonable. A court could reasonably conclude that it was not in the best interest of a child for the child's father to attend his extracurricular events during the mother's parenting time where the father had previously used the child's extracurricular activities as a pretext to continue harassing and controlling the mother. The order modifying a parenting plan to prohibit the father from attending the child's extracurricular activities during the mother's parent time was not vague or overbroad.
Rybolt v. Riley- filed Jan. 31, 2018, publication ordered Feb. 26, 2018, Third District
Cite as 2018 S.O.S. 957
Full text click here >
Insurance Law
Party-selected appraisers must be regarded as arbitrators within the meaning of Evidence Code Sec. 703.5 and the admissibility of their declarations is limited to the four purposes specified in that statute.
Khorsand v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Co. - filed Feb. 27, 2018, Second District, Div. Four
Cite as 2018 S.O.S. 994
Full text click here >
Torts
A party who hires an independent contractor to do work on a property cannot be held liable for injuries resulting from open or known hazards the contractor could have remedied through the adoption of reasonable safety precautions, but he can be held liable when he or she exposes a contractor to a known hazard that cannot be remedied through reasonable safety precautions. Photographs and videos showing different people moving about on the roof of a building were insufficient to prove that a plaintiff could have reasonably done the same three years prior.
Gonzalez v. Mathis - filed Feb. 6, 2018, Second District, Div. Seven
Cite as 2018 S.O.S. 683
Full text click here >
|