[UPDATED THROUGH SEPTEMBER 29, 2016]

Is Parental Fault or Neglect Needed for Dependency Jurisdiction? After the Court of Appeal affirmed orders in a juvenile dependency proceeding, the Supreme Court granted review of the following issue: Does Welfare and Institutions Code § 300(b)(1) authorize dependency jurisdiction without a finding that parental fault or neglect is responsible for the failure or inability to supervise or protect the child? In re R.T., S226416, (opinion below B256411, formerly 235 Cal.App.4th 795). Review was granted 6/17/15. Update 1/27/16: Review granted in In re Tyler R., S231144, (opinion below B261136, formerly 241 Cal.App.4th 1250). Briefing deferred pending resolution of In re R.T.

Does Probate Code § 15306.5 Create a 25% Cap for the Bankruptcy Estate on a Beneficiaries Estate?  In response to a request under C.R.C., rule 8.548 by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the Supreme Court certified the following issue in consolidated appeals: Does Probate Code § 15306.5  impose an absolute cap of 25 percent on a bankruptcy estate’s access to a beneficiary’s interest in a spendthrift trust that consists entirely of payments from principal, or may the bankruptcy estate reach more than 25 percent under other sections of the Probate Code?”  Frealy v. Reynolds, S224985, (9th Cir. No. 12-60068; 779 F.3d 1028; Central District of California; BAP No. 11-1433, Bankr. Case No. 09-14039-MJ, Adversary Case No. 09-01205-MJ.) Certification was granted 4/29/15.

Do Court Rules Conflict With Welfare & Instit. Code Re Application of Indian Child Welfare Act? After the Court of Appeal found that Rules of Court could not change the statutory definition of Indian Children, the Supreme Court granted review on the following issue: Do rules 5.482(c) and 5.484(c)(2) of the California Rules of Court conflict with Welfare and Institutions Code § 224.1(a), by requiring the juvenile court to apply the provision of the Indian Child Welfare Act (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) to a child found by a tribe to be eligible for tribal membership if the child has not yet obtained formal enrollment? In re Abbigail A., S220187 (opinion below C074264, formerly 226 Cal.App.4th 1450. Review granted 9/10/14.  Update 4/1/16: Oral argument scheduled for 5/3/16.  The briefs are here.  Update 5/3/16: Case argued and submitted.  Update 7/14/16: Opinion filed.  The unanimous Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeal in part, agreeing that California Rules of Court, Rule 5.482(c) is invalid because it conflicts with the state statutes, including their incorporation of the federal definition of an Indian child. However, the Supreme Court found that 5.484(c)(2) was consistent with the governing laws, as it merely directs the juvenile court to pursue tribal membership for a child who meets the statutory definition of Indian child

Does Tribal Sovereign Immunity Apply if Daily Operations Are Contracted Out to a Third Party? After the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in a civil action, the Supreme Court granted review on the following issue: Is a payday loan company owned by a federally recognized Indian tribe entitled to tribal sovereign immunity, and thus exempt from state regulation, if the day-to-day management of the business is handled by a third party management company that is not affiliated with the tribe and pays the tribe a small percentage of the gross revenues? People v. Miami National Enterprises, S216878 (opinion below B242644, formerly 223 Cal.App.4th 21). Review granted on 5/21/14.  Update 8/25/16: Oral argument scheduled for 9/29/16. Update 9/29/16: Cause argued and submitted.