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, May 25, 2016. 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
Bianka M. v. Superior Court, S233757—Review Granted—May 25, 2016
The petitioner is a teenage girl from Honduras who entered the United States without documentation in 2013. She was briefly detained by federal immigration authorities, then resettled in Los Angeles where she now lives with her mother. The petitioner’s mother and biological father never married. He resides in Honduras. The question presented is whether the trial court erred in denying the juvenile petitioner’s request for an order making findings concerning Special Immigrant Juvenile status (8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(27)(J); see Code Civ. Proc., § 155) and placing her in her mother’s sole legal and physical custody.
The Second District Court of Appeal, Division Three, held in a published decision, Bianka M. v. Superior Court (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 406, that (1) as a matter of first impression, abandonment, as used under the Special Immigrant Juvenile statute (SIJ), means leaving a child without provision for reasonable and necessary care or supervision;(2) as a matter of first impression, SIJ findings are to be made after or in connection with a judicial custody determination after a full and fair evidentiary hearing; (3) as a matter of first impression, a parentage action is not a bona fide custody proceeding, as required for the trial court to make SIJ findings; (4) the trial court did not abuse its discretion by requiring the father’s joinder; (5) the trial court did not abuse its discretion by considering due process in making joinder decision; (6) the fact that trial court had subject matter jurisdiction over the child custody proceeding did not indicate that court necessarily had authority to issue a custody order; and (7) the juvenile was required to provide her father with notice of the specific SIJ findings she sought.
Review Denied (with dissenting justices)
None.
Depublished
None.
