Home      Login

Abstract: 

Our regular review of appellate court rulings examines five decisions on evidence, “failure to protect” rulings, and the application of California’s Kelsey S. Law. In California dependency, In re B.H. sharply limits “failure to protect” findings based solely on past domestic violence absent evidence of ongoing risk, while still sustaining jurisdiction where a parent knowingly exposed children to a dangerous, substance-impaired caregiver. In Ohio, a pattern of unresolved, ongoing violence supported termination of parental rights despite service compliance. Two custody/adoption decisions underscore evidentiary and doctrinal safeguards for survivors: Adoption of X.D. reverses a Kelsey S. finding and holds threatening texts were wrongly excluded, and Nevada reverses a joint-custody award where the court applied the wrong proof standard and improperly excluded DV evidence. Finally, New York holds family courts lack statutory authority to subject a nonrespondent custodial parent to child-welfare supervision absent removal findings, reinforcing due-process limits on state intervention.

Keywords: Failure To Protect; Kelsey S. Father Doctrine; Domestic Violence Evidence; Child Custody Standards; Dependency Proceedings

Affiliations:  1: Contributing Editor; 2: Associate Editor.