§Why CasetextPricing

IN RE I.J.

Appellant’s Reply Brief on the Merits

14 Cited authorities

  1. In re Rocco M.

    1 Cal.App.4th 814 (Cal. Ct. App. 1991)   Cited 1,324 times
    Finding "guidance" in this language for determining what constitutes a substantial risk of serious harm under subdivision (b)

  2. In re Brison C.

    81 Cal.App.4th 1373 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000)   Cited 324 times
    Reversing dependency court's jurisdictional findings and remanding to family court

  3. Katie V. v. Superior Court

    130 Cal.App.4th 586 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 270 times
    Noting that the focus of reunification services " 'is to remedy those problems which led to the removal' "

  4. In re P.A.

    144 Cal.App.4th 1339 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006)   Cited 252 times
    Holding that even if section 355.1, subdivision (d)’s presumption is "not triggered" in a particular case, "it nonetheless evinces a legislative determination" that a child may be exposed to a substantial risk of harm if the circumstances enumerated under that provision are deemed to exist

  5. In re Maria R.

    185 Cal.App.4th 48 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010)   Cited 200 times
    Holding that “the phrase ‘sexual abuse’ for purposes of section 300 ... does not include in its enumerated offenses the collateral damage to a child that might result from the family's or child's reaction to a sexual assault on the child's sibling”

  6. In re Jasmine G.

    82 Cal.App.4th 282 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000)   Cited 261 times
    Holding evidence that child had been "disciplined at times 'in anger' " was not substantial where "the uncontroverted testimony was that both [parents] had forsaken corporal punishment"

  7. In re Rubisela E.

    85 Cal.App.4th 177 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000)   Cited 190 times
    Finding jurisdiction under section 300, subdivision (j) of 11-year-old daughter, whose 13-year-old sister was sexually abused by father

  8. In re J. W.

    29 Cal.4th 200 (Cal. 2002)   Cited 151 times
    Referring to the "principle, commonly known under the Latin name of expressio unius est exclusio alterius ... that the expression of one thing in a statute ordinarily implies the exclusion of other things"

  9. In re Amy M.

    232 Cal.App.3d 849 (Cal. Ct. App. 1991)   Cited 180 times
    Upholding finding of competency where child testified to “hallucinations” about her mother and guinea pig

  10. In re D.G.

    208 Cal.App.4th 1562 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012)   Cited 68 times
    Ordering removal from one parent and placing child with the other

  11. Rule 8.520 - Briefs by parties and amici curiae; judicial notice

    Cal. R. 8.520   Cited 3,146 times

    (a)Parties' briefs; time to file (1) Within 30 days after the Supreme Court files the order of review, the petitioner must serve and file in that court either an opening brief on the merits or the brief it filed in the Court of Appeal. (2) Within 30 days after the petitioner files its brief or the time to do so expires, the opposing party must serve and file either an answer brief on the merits or the brief it filed in the Court of Appeal. (3) The petitioner may file a reply brief on the merits or