Supreme Court Oral Argument 2026-02 -04 - Feb 04, 2026

argument

Supreme Court Oral Argument 2026-02 -04

Supreme Court of California 6h 25m 4 speakers 7 chapters transcribed 3 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What do the opening remarks and case introductions cover?

Patricia Guerrero 0:04

Recording in progress

Unknown 0:11

Supreme Court City on Hall is now a session.

Patricia Guerrero 0:32

Good morning, it's a full house. Welcome to oral argument before the California Supreme Court. We're very happy to join you here in Sacramento. And I would also like to welcome I think we have Well, you're all special, but we have additional special visitors in the courtroom from McClatchy High School, I believe. Raise your hand if you're here. Yes, I see you here. Thank you and welcome. Is your teacher here with you? Thank you. You're being called out too. Is it Mr. Voisson? Welcome. You don't have to stand, but welcome. And I think throughout the day we're also will be having students from UC Davis Law School and um Justice Macy Walla. is here as well, so thank you. The clerk may call the calendar, please.

Unknown 1:17

Good morning, the Supreme Court, California. I'm hearing oral arguments in Sacramento on Wednesday, February fourth. thousand twenty six and nine AM. His number S two eight nine four three zero and S two eight nine four four one in race VG. at all persons coming under juvenile court law. San Bernardino County Children and Family Services. Plenty of respondent versus A G. If I'm appelling. In ray AG on habeas corpus. For appealing, Mr Paul Swiller, appealing by video conference. Mr. Suller?

Paul Swiller 1:52

Good morning, honourable justices. I apologize. Um I w wasn't I was trying to figure out my mute button. Um

Unknown 1:59

Just hold on uh For responding, Mr. David Guardado. His number is two seven seven nine ten. In Ray Gerald, John Kowalchek. On habeas corpus for petition, Ms. Marsan Whis. For petition, Miss Rose Michan. And for responding, Mr Joshua Martin. Ready. Case number S two eight four seven five one. The people plaintiff and respondent versus Richard Curris Morris Junior. Defendant an appellum. For appellum, Ms. Pauline Villanuela. And for respond, Mr. James Dewey.

Patricia Guerrero 2:43

Thank you, calling the first matter in Ray Z G. And on this first case, we're joined today um by our colleague Justice Baltonado Baltadano, I'm sorry, from the Second District Court of Appeal. We thank you for joining us here today. Uh and appellants council is proceeding by video conference, so please go ahead whenever you're ready.

Paul Swiller 3:05

Thank you. Uh good morning, honorable justices. Um my name is Paul Swiller, uh and I represent the appellant and petitioner A G in this matter, who I will refer to as mother. Uh these consolidated cases involve mother's appeal and writ of habeas corpus from a juvenile court case involving her daughters ZG and A. G. Wherein the parental rights of mother and the non appealing father were terminated. However, the court clearly erred when it terminated parental rights before providing mother with reunification services or bypassing her for such services in AG's case. This error made at jurisdiction and disposition hearings on a Section three hundred and eighty seven supplemental petition prejudice mother in the absolute worst way by not allowing her the opportunity to reunify with her daughter.

Paul Swiller 3:52

The error also rendered invalid the court's subsequent order terminating parental rights under section three hundred sixty six point two six C one of the welfare and institutions code because the provision of reunific uh because the provision of reunification services or the denial thereof is a necessary antecedent to a termination order. For these reasons, mother respectfully requests that this court reverse the order terminating parental rights and remand at least AG's matter with instructions that mother be provided with reunification services in this child's case. As to the sibling ZG Reversing the termination of parental rights in AG's case necessarily impacts ZG because it raises the likelihood that mother or the children are

Paul Swiller 4:37

would prove the substantial interference with a sibling relationship exception under section three six six point two six C one B V because the two sisters have spent their lives together.

Patricia Guerrero 4:48

Can I ask for clarification, Counsel, just in terms of the disposition that you're requesting. You indicated if we reverse we should remand. And then what what happens in the juvenile court?