The following is our summary of the Supreme Court’s actions on petitions for review in civil cases from the Court’s conference on Wednesday, October 29, 2014. The summary includes those civil cases in which (1) review has been granted, (2) review has been denied but one or more justices has voted for review, or (3) the Court has ordered depublished an opinion of the Court of Appeal.
Review Granted
In re Isaiah W., S221263—Review Granted—October 29, 2014
This case presents the following issue: Does a parent’s failure to appeal from a juvenile court order finding that notice under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) was unnecessary preclude the parent from subsequently challenging that finding more than a year later in the course of appealing an order terminating parental rights?
In In re Isaiah W., the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) filed a petition to remove a child from his parents’ care after the child was born with a positive toxicology for marijuana. At the dispositional hearing, the juvenile court granted DCFS’s petition. However, the mother told the court the child may have American Indian ancestry, and the court ordered DCFS to investigate the claim. The court subsequently reviewed DCFS’s report, concluding “there was no ‘reason to know’ that [the child] was ‘an Indian child as defined under ICWA.’ ” Neither parent challenged the finding of the juvenile court. The court then terminated all parental rights.
The Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Three, held in a published opinion, In re Isaiah W. (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 981, that because the mother failed to timely appeal from the juvenile court’s finding, she was foreclosed from raising the issue on appeal.
Dane v. City of Santa Rosa, S221341—Review Granted and Held—October 29, 2014
The court ordered briefing deferred pending decision in Wheatherford v. City of San Rafael, S219567, which presents the following issue: Must a plaintiff have paid or be liable to pay a property tax to a government entity in order to bring a taxpayer waste action against that entity under Code of Civil Procedure section 526, subdivision a, or can the payment of other taxes confer standing?
In an unpublished opinion, Dane v. City of Santa Rosa, the First Appellate District, Division Two, “agree[d] with the various appellate courts that have unanimously held that payment of an assessed property tax is required for an individual to have standing to bring a taxpayer action.”
Review Denied (with dissenting justices)
None.
Depublished
None.
