Marriage of Furie is an appellate decision from October 30, 2017. The 2nd District, Division 1, in Los Angeles handled the appeal. The parties were Russell Furie and Kelly Furie. The following is a brief summary that explains what we consider to be the more important issues on appeal and the appellate court’s ruling. [Read more…]
Child custody cases can be stressful. Add military and child custody, especially parents who are on active duty, and that stress can go to another level. The family law appellate decision of Marriage of E.U. and J.E. is an important one from the Fourth Appellate District, Division Three (which is the appellate district that hears Orange County appeals). The EU and JE case (using the initials of the parents) deals with military and child custody issues, specifically the parental rights of deployed service members.
The facts of the case are as follows… [Read more…]
In re Drake M. is a very recent case (decided on December 5, 2012) where the Second Appellate District (hearing Los Angeles appeals) grappled with the issue of a child’s dependency status and a parents’ drug use. We decided to write about Drake not because we believe it will have a direct impact on family law decisions but because we found the facts and the court’s analysis interesting on the issue of substance use versus substance abuse and we thought those of you who read this blog would do as well.
The facts of In re: Drake M. are as follows… [Read more…]
Sometimes, California appellate court cases that arise out of what are called Welfare and Institution Code 300 matters and involve abuse or neglect of children can help us understand where the appellate court may lean on such issues if a similar issue arose in a family law case. There is a big difference between these WI 300 matters (as they are called) and family law matters. A different set of laws apply. However, our family lawyers like to look at these decisions (the interesting ones) to get a “feel” for why the appellate court ruled the way it did.
The case of In Re David R. is one of those decisions. We were not involved in any aspect of the case but we found the decision interesting (and a bit disturbing) so we decided to write about it. [Read more…]