# Michael U. v. Jamie B.

> California Supreme Court · September 19, 1985 · 39 Cal. 3d 787

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9528643

## Case

- **Full name:** MICHAEL U., a Minor, Etc., Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JAMIE B., a Minor, Etc., Et Al., Defendants and Appellants; JAMIE B., a Minor, Etc., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF ORANGE COUNTY, Respondent; MICHAEL U., a Minor, Etc., Real Party in Interest
- **Court:** California Supreme Court
- **Decided:** September 19, 1985
- **Citations:** 39 Cal. 3d 787; 218 Cal. Rptr. 39; 705 P.2d 362; 1985 Cal. LEXIS 336
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Kaus
- **Judges:** Broussard, Kaus, Mosk, Reynoso
- **Cited by:** 89 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Red flag:** Superseded by statute, as recognized in In Re Zacharia D..
- Negative treatments: 1
- Distinguished by: 0
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9528643

## Opinion text

KAUS, J.
I concur. The lead opinion reaches what I believe to be the only result which comports with justice. Yet, after reading Justice Reynoso’s dissent, I cannot help having some misgivings that—given the “detriment” standard—the lead opinion comes close to impinging on the substantial evidence rule.
The more I think about it, the more certain I am that the trouble with this case is not so much the factfinding process, but this court’s unfortunate *797 misstep in In re Baby Girl M. (1984) 37 Cal.3d 65 [ 207 Cal.Rptr. 309 , 688 P.2d 918 ]. The sooner we rectify that mistake, the better. Applying the standard which ought to govern—“what disposition is in the best interests of the child?”—there can be no question that the lead opinion has reached the correct result.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9528643. Public record. Not legal advice.