Roxana Shayan, Attorney at Law

05/22/2026

When a tattoo blocks your Green Card !

Sanchez Gonzalez v. U.S. Dep't of State, No. 23-4205 (9th Cir. Apr. 30, 2026)

Poor Mr. Sanchez. He came to the States illegally from Mexico at 15. He married, had 3 kids, went to church, coached soccer and got himself many tattoos. His tattoos were of his kids, his Aztec pride, a dove with the date of his father's death, a joker and clown, images of women and such. 25 years go by. His wife applies to adjust his status (I-130). By law, he has to leave to attend his immigration interview at his country's consular office. During the interview, it is alleged the consular officer asked him a series of questions about his tattoos and told him that he should have them removed. Nothing was said about gangs, arrests, criminal record, or anything else. He did not have arrests or criminal record. The consular officer denied Sanchez's visa application for tattoos being gang related. That's it end of the road.

Since the admission and exclusion of foreign nationals is vested in the political department, they are largely immune from judicial control. Congress delegated to executive officials the discretionary authority to admit noncitizens. the court concluded: "We are sympathetic that Sanchez . . . since the age of fifteen. But we are bound to follow the law. And the law is clear that decisions by consular officers are ordinarily nonreviewable...."

05/12/2026

Poverty should not be a barrier to parental visitation.

The decision in In re Reyna R. (B338698), filed on 2/9/26, (Los Angeles County) , addresses the issue in dependency court: whether a court can mandate professional visitation at a parent's expense without considering their ability to pay.

In that case, Father, a gardener, was ultimately ordered "professional monitored visitation." The reason, physical abuse and alcohol abuse. In August 2023, Father slapped the mother in front of their oldest child, Reyna who was 13 at the time. Reyna called the police and father was arrested. In March 2024, Father drunk called his daughter and left voice mail messages calling her a "bitch." He also made threats to burn down the house and cut them off of all financial support. Then on two other occasions, he followed the Mother as she was walking to children's school and became physically aggressive with her. During one of those incidents, he grabbed the Mother by her arms, shook her and threatened to throw her in his truck. Bystanders intervened. Mother obtained a 3 years restraining order which prohibited the Father from any contact with the wife and kids except for court-ordered visits.

Under California dependency law, visitation must be as frequent as possible, consistent with the well-being of the child. While a court has broad discretion to impose conditions on visitation (such as monitoring), it cannot impose conditions that effectively preclude visitation. If a parent raises a timely objection regarding the cost of a professional monitor, the court has a duty to: (1) Inquire into the parent's ability to pay. (2) Consider whether there are reasonable alternatives (such as a non-professional monitor or a low-cost service) that would still ensure the children's safety.

The Appellate Court found that the juvenile court’s order was "illusory." By requiring a gardener with limited income to pay for a professional monitor - an expense that could easily exceed his disposable income - the court effectively denied him the very visitation it had granted.

The court noted that while the father's behavior (threatening voicemails and domestic violence) justified the need for a monitor, the law does not allow the court to ignore the financial burden of its orders. Because the father raised a specific objection about his inability to pay, the trial court was required to hold a hearing or perform an inquiry to determine if the financial requirement would act as a total barrier to his parental rights.

The Court of Appeal reversed the portion of the order requiring the father to pay for a professional monitor. It remanded the case to the juvenile court with instructions to conduct a hearing to assess the father's financial ability and to explore alternative monitoring options (like a mutually agreed-upon friend or relative) that would not render his visitation rights meaningless. The rest of the custody orders were affirmed.

05/05/2026

New California Supreme Court decision on Parental Termination and Due Process.
In re Z.G. (S289430) filed 4/27/26 San Bernardino County.

The case involved two siblings, Child #1 and Child #2, from San Bernardino County. Dependency proceedings began after child #1 (an infant at the time) tested positive for methamphetamine. While the mother initially engaged in services and the children were briefly returned to her, new issues arose after the birth of Child #2.

At a later dispositional hearing, the San Bernardino Superior Court terminated reunification services for both children and set a permanency planning hearing. However, there was a critical procedural oversight: the mother had never actually received reunification services for child #2. Her trial counsel failed to object to this and did not file a writ petition to challenge the termination of services. Subsequently, the juvenile court terminated the mother’s parental rights for both children based on a finding that they were likely to be adopted.

The Supreme Court addressed two primary questions:

Statutory Requirements: Can parental rights be terminated under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 solely on a finding of "adoptability" if the parent never received reunification services and was not properly bypassed for them?

Ineffective Assistance of Counsel: Did the mother receive ineffective assistance of counsel when her attorney failed to assert her right to services for child #2 or challenge the order setting the permanency hearing?

The Court interpreted Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26, subdivision (c)(1): 1. To terminate parental rights, a court must find both that the child is likely to be adopted and that there is a "sufficient basis" for termination. And, 2. A "sufficient basis" includes a prior finding that reunification services were either provided and terminated or were legally bypassed under specific statutory exceptions (e.g., section 361.5).

The California Supreme Court reversed the judgment.

On the Statutory Issue: The Court held that a finding of adoptability alone is insufficient. The law requires a "sufficient basis" finding to ensure due process. Because the mother was never provided services for child #2 and services were not legally bypassed, the court lacked the authority to terminate her rights.

On the Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Issue: The Court found that trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to protect the mother's statutory right to reunification services and failing to prosecute a writ challenge.

The case was remanded to the lower court to provide the mother with the reunification services she was entitled to regarding child #2 and to reconsider the impact of that decision on the sibling relationship with child #1.

04/03/2026

International Child Relocation: Can consent to relocation be given prior to the birth of a child?

This issue came up recently in the UK in the matter of T vs. S (2025) EWHC 3581 (Fam) involving a New Zealand born child. Father filed a Hague Convention child abduction application seeking the return of a newborn child to New Zealand after the mother returned to England shortly after the child’s birth. The mother resisted return relying on defenses that the father had consented to the relocation and that the return would expose the child to a grave risk of harm. The father argued that any consent given during pregnancy should be treated with caution or disregarded entirely.

Key Issue: The issue was whether a parent can give valid consent to relocation before the child is born. The High Court refused the return order confirming that pre-birth consent can be valid as there is no rule that consent must be given after birth. The key question is whether consent was clear, unequivocal and operative at the time of removal.

Facts considered: The Court looked at the realities of the interactions between the parents rather than a strict contractual test of consent. Evidence provided, including messages and recordings, showed the father had repeatedly agreed the mother could return to England and had not withdrawn consent. There was also evidence of domestic abuse and the impact on the mother’s mental health supported a finding that return would create a grave risk of harm or an intolerable situation for the child.

The case confirms that consent under the Hague Convention can be given before birth. It also emphasises a practical, fact-sensitive approach to consent and reinforces that domestic abuse and parental wellbeing can ground a successful defense.

Obligations and Responsibilities Prior to Birth: The case highlights the legal intricacies of parental responsibility and a parents rights and obligations before a child is born. It is important to consult with legal professionals and seek legal advice to fully comprehend and navigate these complex issues especially if issues or disagreements arise during the pregnancy.

03/13/2026

What does discrimination and bias look like:

In Los Angeles County, a female police psychologist next in line for the top position - Director of the Psychological Services Bureau, was bypassed in favor of her subordinate, a male with no management experience, even while she was serving as acting director in preparation for taking on the role. When the position was offered to the male psychologist, two other qualified women were also passed over. After she complained, she was reassigned to the coroner's office.
She sued for s*x discrimination and retaliation and the Los Angeles County jury awarded her $2.7 million in damages plus attorney fees.
A reminder of why legal advocacy remains essential. Good job attorney Aaron Osten. (Christine Jones v. County of Los Angeles, et al.)

01/30/2026

New case in Domestic Violence: Stalking and Harassment.
R.R. v. C.R. (1/26/26). Parties divorced; husband/father was awarded primary physical custody of their minor child.

Husband alleged ex-Wife had repeatedly followed him and their child, rang his doorbell incessantly, refused to leave his property, entered his home and car without permission, sent excessive texts and calls, threatened to contact his employer and parents, and followed him in her vehicle while driving erratically, including a freeway incident where she attempted to force him to pull over. Husband testified that the conduct caused him and their child fear and anxiety.

Trial court (Los Angeles County) denied a restraining order. The trial court felt that although the ex-wife's behavior was "obsessive" and 'alarming", it did not constitute abuse because it lacked threats or intimidation and appeared linked to mental health issues. Husband appealed. Reversed and Remanded.

The appellate court said to issue a restraining order what is required is reasonable proof of a past act or acts of abuse. Intent to threaten or intimidate is not required, and courts must consider the totality of the circumstances. Abuse encompasses nonphysical conduct that destroys a person's mental or emotional calm, including obsessive following, repeated unwanted contact, and monitoring of movements. The record showed largely undisputed evidence of such behavior: repeated stalking, harassment, and intrusive behavior over several months, conduct the trial court itself described as clearly obsessive" and "sufficiently alarming". Appellate court said that the trial court improperly narrowed its analysis and failed to consider the totality of the circumstances and applied an incorrect legal standard.

12/09/2025

05/29/2025

First Amendment vs. Employer vaccine mandate: California's new case sets the stage ! [Sexton v. Apple Studios LLC (2025) 110 Cal. App. 5th 183.]

In early 2022, an actor (Brent) was offered a part to play in a series (Manhunt) conditioned upon his vaccination against covid-19. Actor sought medical exemption due to blood clotting and requested accommodation. The studio withdrew its offer because they determined that an unvaccinated actor could not be safely accommodated on set. Actor sued for Disability Discrimination.

The Court of Appeal found in favor of the studio. Held, the decision not to cast the actor was a free speech issue as it protected "expressive conduct" under the First Amendment. The court said the choice of an actor to portray the particular character was a "creative endeavor" and by making vaccination mandatory, the studio "took a stand" on the ongoing public debate about vaccination policy.
The Court further held that a key element for an employment discrimination claim is that the plaintiff show that he/she is qualified for the position. Because the actor was unvaccinated, he was not qualified for the job he sought.

Decided 3/28/25. Non-Partisan Justices: John Wiley Jr., Elizabeth Grimes, Victor Viramontes.

02/09/2025