C.Chan=Winning Results! AFFORDABLE! 4.7/5 Ratings by Clients Friendly+Affordable!CHICO NEW PH.#530.497-0777

Monday, November 21, 2016


Attorney herein practices both family law and criminal law...this can be a big help in defending domestic violence cases...............

....The best thing to do if accused of any "DV" TRO

 is to immediately get legal help so that you

 don't go down like a sinking ship

 before you even get started.  

The last thing most people need is a "DV" TRO on their record, even if they are not guilty of it--- it carries both a stigma (you beat up people or try to hurt them, etc), that you are not fit to watch or babysit children (age  of kids will matter but especially babies)  and you will be stuck with what is known as supervised visitation which you will likely not be able to afford, or will not want to afford.  Further, the wait list is very long unless you plan to use a private agency which is quite expensive.

Waiting--- Will Harm You!!!

In nearly all cases, you should either set for trial or if the other side
is willing to drop it-- that's fine--but most of those that drop
such charges tend to refile them... 


As can be seen by the Penal Code, 
this means you will
be in Criminal Court, 
not Family Law Court!!!!

Chico Family Law Lawyers - Justia

Claimed Lawyer ProfileSocial Media. Mr. Maria Amaya. Chico, CA Family Law Lawyer. Geoff A.Dulebohn, Esq. Chico, CA Family Law Attorney. Carolyn J. Chan. Chico, CA Family Law Attorney

Monday, October 17, 2016

Drugs+ Not-so Good Apps for Kids and Young People

The best way to know if you or the other parent could be affected by the issue of drug use or inappropriate use of media by kids,  is to assume you WOULD be affected and then go from there.  There is no bright line law or case law currently in California which seals a parent's fate as to marijuana in general right now, and probably no published cases on media app use.

Attorney herein researches these issues as they apply to California Family Law, and makes best efforts to remain current on new cases or decisions.  Attorney is well aware of the long running case from Butte County that then seeming moved to another county just north of Butte, with varying detriment (depending on what one considers detrimental...)  In any event, any type of drug, even if it's a prescription, can be cause for concern in a divorce case.

We all know that alcohol use can be a concern, but it's legal to buy it, right? It's legal to obtain many drugs straight off the shelf at the store.
When courts have to consider whether drug usage is going to affect custody, it will depend on what evidence is available, how good the attorney is at setting up the defense or attack of the issue, what the exact facts are and are they verifiable, and how; essentially, all of the foundation requirements for evidentiary hearing, and all of the foundation requirements for supporting evidence should be known; further, the lack of such evidence and the preclusion possibilities, as with all evidence, will come into play.

Trying cases with drugs involved should be left to attorneys who handle trials, because the proof and litigation aspects can be done with more precision. Many clients don't want to spend the funds to engage litigators to gain appropriate custody because they do not understand the time involved to make the defense, or the admissibility for proper charging evidence. Child endangerment does not apply to all situations, and in fact many fact patterns do not support child endangerment.

In family law we usually see many clients that just believe all they have to do is say something, and that makes it true.  That is not the case necessarily.  Conversely, clients often believe they can just say something is not true, and that will prove their case. That too is not necessarily true, because if it was, then there would be no NEED for any attorneys at all, because clients could prove everything themselves?

Obviously, clients, at least most of them, are not able to do that because they did not go to law school and then work for 20+ years at honing their skill. We have to deal with inaccurate facts, misleading statements, the social media nightmare, Facebook (often the absolute worst), and tons of  Internet postings, admissions, accusations, texts, blogging, examples: Lively, Instagram, Vine, Snapchat, Kiks Messenger, WhatsApp, GroupMe,tumblr, Twitter,Musical.ly, You Now: Broadcast,Chat,and Watch Live Video, Burn Note,Whisper, Yik Yak, Omegle+Tinder (dangerous/or not appropriate for kids).

New apps come out all the time and they will never stop. These things can be worse than drugs in some ways as unknown people can take advantage of kids, teens, etc. A parent would never even know because most parents don't really know what kids are doing with their phones.

Personally, we would not give kids a phone, computer or any electronic device which was NOT monitored, it is very easy to obtain software to do this!

Chico Family Law Attorney C. Chan 530.359.8810 ... Win Your Case!


Chico Family Law Attorney C. Chan 530.359.8810 . .... That 27k client (against advice of attorney herein) apparently went and signed a stipulated agreement ...

Claimed Lawyer ProfileSocial Media. Mr. Maria Amaya. Chico, CA Family Law Lawyer. Geoff A.Dulebohn, Esq. Chico, CA Family Law Attorney. Carolyn J. Chan. Chico, CA Family Law Attorney. Michael Odowd Hays. Chico, CA Family Law Lawyer. Norman Jenkins Ryker IIIValerie Ann MillerDavid Mikel Howard.

Chico Family Legal Aid & Pro Bono Services - Justia California Lawyer ...


... and research family legal aid and pro bono legal service organizations in Chico, ... Family, DUI andDivorce ... Family, Civil Rights, Consumer and Employment ... Contrary to popular belief, seeking the advice of a family law attorney does not ...

Tuesday, October 11, 2016

Innocent Inmate Wins $20M Then Loses Half to Wife He Married While in Prison??!!

An Illinois appeals Court says the inmate CAN'T exclude the settlement funds from his "marital property".......the inmate, Mr. Juan Rivera, was in jail since 1992 for allegedly murdering an 11 year old child, but was cleared by DNA evidence and released in 2012. (story continued below....)
Juan Rivera
Juan A Rivera.png
Juan Rivera
BornJuan A. Rivera, Jr.
October 31, 1972 (age 43)
Puerto Rico
Known forBeing wrongfully convicted three times for the murder of Holly Staker and receiving the largest wrongful conviction settlement in US history

Mr. Rivera was married in 2000 (while in prison) and filed for divorce in 2014.  Rivera argued that the settlement was not marital property as it stemmed from conduct that occurred in 1992, while the wife claimed it stemmed from the lawsuit filed after Rivera's overturned conviction in 2011.
The appeals court sided with Sanders-Rivera (the former wife)  in a Sept. 30 decision (PDF)


Personal injuries that occur during the marriage

Family Code 2603 states:
“(a) “Community estate personal injury damages” as used in this section means all money or other property received or to be received by a person in satisfaction of a judgment for damages for the person’s personal injuries or pursuant to an agreement for the settlement or compromise of a claim for the damages, if the cause of action for the damages arose during the marriage, but is not separate property as described in Section 781, unless the money or other property has been commingled with other assets of the community estate.
(b) Community estate personal injury damages shall be assigned to the party who suffered the injuries unless the court, after taking into account the economic condition and needs of each party, the time that has elapsed since the recovery of the damages or the accrual of the cause of action, and all other facts of the case, determines that the interests of justice require another disposition.
     In such a case, the community estate personal injury damages shall be assigned to the respective parties in such proportions as the court determines to be just, except that at least one-half of the damages shall be assigned to the party who suffered the injuries.”
If Mr. Rivera was represented in California, any attorney should definitely argue against the wife, since the entire settlement and law suit was because he was factually innocent, and had to suffer for decades PLUS his settlement is the largest in the entire country (as he was convicted THREE times!!!)  In other words, although she did marry him, she was not in jail with him.

Saturday, September 17, 2016

Custody and TRO Temporary Restraining Orders

Domestic violence related Restraining Orders are a huge problem, and if you either need to fight one,
or obtain one, be forewarned-- it's very easy to GET a TRO, and defending against them is best
reserved for defense attorneys or at least attorneys who know litigation and not just "settlement."

Very few TRO claims are readily settled--clients are either too upset, too physically harmed, or they
made up facts in order to get back at a spouse. Attorney has seen plenty of vindictive TROs over
the years. Often Judges just rubberstamp them, and issue them for 3 years.

Beware if you need to defend against a DV TRO, because a vindictive spouse is the most
difficult to work with. Knowing that, you will need a lot of help to prevail.
Make sure your attorney can properly defend and fight for you.  If not, you stand to lose quite
a bit, both financially, and emotionally.

If the DV TRO is issued against a party, that party cannot presumptively be the custodial parent.
This means that automatically, unless proven otherwise, you are out of the picture as
custodial parent, even if you already were the custodial parent. This would likely require
 a trial to change that.

The best defense in such a case is to be prepared ahead of time, not after the fact.
Make sure your attorney is not simply focused on settling everything while you lose
out. Much of divorce these days requires the ability to litigate for the client.
Settling does not always work.

Wednesday, August 31, 2016

Separate Property "Reimbursement" by One Spouse; Or is There Enough $$ Left?

Years ago, the Lucas case decided that a spouse contributing her or her separate property funds toward a community asset meant that it was a "gift" to the community, and basically, the contributing spouse did not receive back the amount contributed.  That is the short version of how it used to be.

Then the California Legislature codified Civil Code Sections 4800.1 and 4800.2 into Family Code Sections 2581 and 2640, whereby a right of reimbursement for separate property contributions (absent express agreement otherwise) come off the top of community property, as the characterization and reimbursement must be determined before the community property is divided. Often the community property is held in joint tenancy but not always. There are many variations between cases as to how spouses held title, the year it was first purchased, or refinanced, or subsequently re-titled to some degree.  Further, case law indicates evidence where money from various sources are used for obtaining assets, then commingled to some degree, then sold and used to buy yet another property with even additional funds from different sources (inheritance, loan payoff, refinance, sale, etc.)

The difficult cases usually involve a series over a number of years whereby the parties have bought and sold businesses and real estate and then changed the way title was held, and spent some of the proceeds but then used part of the proceeds for different things.  As expected, tracing large or numerous transactions can be quite a bit of work.

IN some cases the tracing is not exactly obvious or clear, or title is not exactly clear. Also under FC Section 2640, without a clear written waiver of the reimbursement, the community does not simply get to keep that separate proceed, such as a traceable down payment.  There are many published cases on Section 2640 cases, and quite a few involve convoluted tracing.

The reason that this Code Section is hazardous, is mainly because if one spouse thinks the contributing spouse donated the payment to the community (even if there was no clear waiver of the reimbursement right) then the community proceeds may be much larger or smaller than anticipated, because either the waiver was or was not executed sufficiently.

        Image result for picture house splitting half divorce

An example: Susan and Bill are to be married, and prior to marriage, Susan already owned a home worth $500,000, with $500,000 equity. During marriage, Susan deeds the house to Susan and Bill, as community property and records the new deed. At that time, the house equity had increased to $700,000.

Several years later they get divorced. The value of the house is still $700,000. No new loans were taken out on the house, and it was not refinanced or used for collateral on any other property.

So the question is:  Does the community now obtain any of the gained equity? Meaning, does Bill get any proceeds from it?  The answer is probably no. As can be seen this Code Section can be a trap for the unwary. Appreciation (if any) from point A forward is not necessarily the same as one half of the equity (in the home) when considered under FC Section 2640.  If you suspect you have this issue and do not want to guess or make a mistake, make sure you talk to an attorney that is familiar with this.

Friday, July 8, 2016

Attorney Saves Over $900k in Real Estate Assets With 1 Letter, No Litigation !!

How Attorney Saved Client Many $$ Thousands $$ in Litigation Expense --- with One Letter!

When couples split up and are not married and have no domestic contract or partnership or other qualified written agreement, just about anything can happen. 

As an example, consider how much money was saved when attorney drafted a demand letter after one party attempted to take advantage of the other party in a real estate situation involving approximately $902,541 in real estate, by welching on her promise; to be honest, attorney was not 100% sure that the letter would solve the problem, since the other party had been carrying on her behavior over at least, a 2 year time frame................

Wednesday, June 29, 2016

Another Judge On "Facebook" Gets In Trouble, Claims Free Speech


BEFORE READING THE STORY------  It's common sense. JUDGES should not be on "Facebook" talking about their cases.  End of story. In fact, most attorneys should avoid Facebook as well....

Judge rebuked for posting on Facebook about trials she was overseeing says ethics panel got it wrong

At least one mistrial resulted because a Texas judge posted on her Facebook account about trials she was overseeing, a judicial ethics panel noted in its decision rebuking her for the practice.
However, 405th District Judge Michelle Slaughter says she did nothing wrong by discussing the cases on her Facebook page and intends to appeal the determination by the state Commission on Judicial Conduct earlier this month. It imposed a public admonition and required the Galveston County jurist to educate herself about social media ethics rules for judges...
In a written statement provided Friday to the Chronicle, Slaughter cited her First Amendment rights and said she had included only publicly available information in her Facebook posts about trials in which she was the presiding judge.
“I will always conduct my proceedings in a fair and impartial way,” she wrote. “The commission’s opinion appears to unduly restrict transparency and openness in government and in our judiciary.”
The commission said Slaughter’s reference to material that wasn’t yet in evidence, as well as a Reuters news article, in her Facebook posts clearly violated ethics rules that were intended to assure the public that judges would oversee cases fairly and impartially. It also pointed out that Slaughter ordered jurors not to discuss the case on social media, but then did so herself.
“Despite her contention that the information she provided was public information, Judge Slaughter cast reasonable doubt upon her own impartiality and violated her own admonition to jurors by turning to social media to publicly discuss cases pending in her court, giving rise to a legitimate concern that she would not be fair or impartial,” the commission wrote.

Sunday, June 26, 2016

Affordable Family Law Attorney Oroville, Chico

Attorney has been working on family law cases for  many years, with a very high percentage of good results. Down to earth, experienced and aggressive but still fair, and a very well spoken advocate in court. Published precedent case at SPB, applicable to all State agencies in California, involving defense of software engineer in alleged sexual harassment, still good precedent since 1993.

You can reach Ms. Chan directly at the number on this site, 530.359.8810.

It's always best to know what you are up against before you get into the case. Attorney has worked on very difficult cases and many, many issues involving kids and finances, non disclosure, alleged abuse, and spousal support disputes; alleged molestation, alleged drug issues, alleged stalking and far more.

Ms. Chan is one of the few attorneys that has worked and researched Animal Law issues for many years, including constitutional due process within the seizure process, exigency issues, improper seizure, owner/breeder property rights, property rights to owned animals/livestock, liens within bankruptcy, owners of service animals, breed specific legislation, breed bans, targed animal owner legislation, and much more.  See, for example: http://animallawparalegal.blogspot.com/

Ms. Chan has practiced in San Diego (all locations- North County, South, Downtown and East County) San Jose Superior, Sacramento Superior (Civil, Criminal, Family), Butte County Superior (Family, Criminal, civil).......  Attorney has also worked on cases shown in the media and news, including animal related cases, and criminal defense related issues. Attorney is admitted into Southern District Federal Court, Northern District Federal Court, and Eastern District Federal Court, plus the Bankruptcy Courts in the same districts, and Colorado Federal District Court.


Thursday, May 5, 2016

More Reasons to Not Like Dumb Laws in California...........

This isn't directly "family law" but it's "law" in California that is definitely carved out of both Los Angeles and San Francisco, and then animal activists just carry the ball even further.

Say NO to this kind of crummy liberal nonsense!!!


California: The Ultimate Nanny State

Zen fascists will control you.
In California, a 15-year-old girl can abort a viable baby without telling her parents, but starting now a married 20-year-old with a job and kids can’t buy a pack of cigarettes. Or get a drink. That same 15-year-old girl is banned from getting an indoor tan, and a woman must obtain, and give, “affirmative consent” before kissing someone during her college years.
No one can use foam takeout containers or plastic carryout bags or play online poker. This is a state that wanted to ban you from eating the livers of waterfowl. If the state discovers you’ve purchased raw milk, a confiscation team may visit your home to impound the supply. The sale of caffeinated beer is forbidden. E-cigarettes are now treated as if they were tobacco,even if they are not.   
OK , below is not related to the article, just thought it was funny........
What does this pic mean?  Dog=child=human  or, Dog=Human....

Wednesday, March 16, 2016

What's Wrong with "Affordable" Legal Help?


So why is the question even asked? Probably because some people believe legal help should not be affordable, legal help should only be for rich people, or anything affordable simply cannot be any good?  REALLY?!

Everyone knows that money talks. Everyone knows that in personal injury, your attorney will not even charge you upfront for most things; they will take a lien. Why?  Because they will be paid later since your case is so good, supposedly.  In fact, they may end up taking up to 40% of your settlement depending on what is done.  But in family law, and criminal law, such contingency upfront liens are not used.  Most can possibly get a real property lien for attorney fees, so something similar. But not an actual contingency lien. (Those are the ads for if you don't win you don't pay...)  In family law, you will likely end up paying unless there is a way your attorney can get the fees from the other party.

Family law rules have certain criteria on who can get paid their fees, and from where. In many instances, it is the female who does not work, being paid by the male who does work. But not always.  We have seen attorneys implicating that "affordable" is not good, but that a standard is good. Surely most attorneys do not believe that simply because something is affordable, it cannot be up to standard?  That is simply wishful thinking. In family law, we have seen attorneys easily charge $3,000, $4,000, $5000, and client never gets a dime, never even gets into court to be heard, and the paperwork filed probably took about an hour to prepare.

Majority of graduates of national Ivy League colleges or law schools normally don't even bother to practice Family Law in the first place. Family law is a very different type of practice because it requires an incredible amount of people skills, patience, and to some degree, extra effort in the compassion department. It also requires one to be able to handle very difficult emotional clients--which many attorneys simply cannot, will not, or choose not to engage with........

Family law has a very high rate of "burnout" meaning, it is taxing in part, due to the emotional situations that are commonly seen. Clients are usually mad, sad, crying, fighting, bitching, moaning, complaining. That is par for the course-- professional people in divorces, non professional,  all of them.  95% of them are mad. Money issues make them mad, custody law makes them mad. Can we blame them?  Not really.

Just remember that few attorneys want to actually "be"  affordable. Affordable pricing for clients will usually mean, attorney does not purchase or lease a Porsche, Mercedes,Tesla, you get the drift?

Many people realize that most attorneys are not poor, and it's not because they charge a lower rate. Some people believe that people who engage in document prep for pro se clients, or those individuals that function as LDAs (legal document assistants) or anyone that does unbundled work for clients must not be worthy. That is just a biased view against anyone who has ever helped clients who have less money; the state of CA has purposely set up the Family law Facilitator and SHARP (to name a few) in order to help with the increasing amount of people who cannot afford attorneys at all.

And with 75 to 80% of clients in pro se status in Family law cases, this has caused a huge backlog in the courts, for example, in the Bay Area, several court houses closed and divorces take 2 years to finalize; in Sacramento, the backlog is estimated at 1.5yr to get a judgment.  Much of that is because the paperwork needed for the cases is not prepared correctly and keeps getting sent back.

Therefore, having the paperwork done correctly will lessen the time it takes to process it--and guess what?  Few attorneys actually prepare paperwork when it comes to forms, most is done by the paralegal or assistant. Those forms are mostly free online, but one does have to know what to do with the forms.For example, failure to properly list an asset as a separate asset may cause the Court to believe it is a community asset.  Attorneys may devise the pleadings and the content and will review everything. However, don't believe that attorneys sit at the computer and fill out the forms, because at $350-$500/hr, they should be doing something else.

*We note that IF a specific case is dealing with exceptionally complicated assets, buyouts, commingled assets, premarital documents, exceptional contested facts like a movie star might have, physicians that own 7 separate medical companies, and cases involving multi-national corporations, or multi-national IP offerings--yes--those cases will take a lot of work, normally working with accounting forensics, maybe a special master. (Attorney herein used to be in an office with special master.)  But for most of the average divorces, those situations do not happen frequently unless one lives in Silicon Valley or Hollywood. 

Thursday, March 10, 2016

Child Killed, Dogs Involved.. and CPS... .Could Have Been Avoided ......Northern California


Pictured directly below is Alexandria, sister of deceased (her 9yr old brother), who was killed by one or more of the dogs in picture with Alexandria.......all 3 dogs were put down.

Note: Update on this case indicates NO charges being filed against the dog owner..NONE.

Animal experts who have monitored the story said the situation was a disaster waiting to happen. Children should not be left alone with a dog, regardless of how gentle the dog may seem to the owner, they said.
“I wouldn’t do that even with my golden retriever and small terrier,” said Rick Johnson, head of the Sacramento SPCA. “That kind of lack of knowledge of a dog owner is disturbing.”
He recommended pit bull owners take the SPCA’s pit bull training classes, offered regularly, and take advantage of the group’s free spay-and-neuter program for pit bulls.
Others said that having three related dogs in the same household, including two siblings just reaching sexual maturity, was a serious error likely to lead to fights among the dogs.
Perhaps the boy let the dogs out of their crate and a fight ensued, with the animals redirecting their aggression toward him, Johnson said. Maybe he played with the dogs, and got them too wound up, or hit one of the animals, provoking it, others suggested.
“So many questions that never will be answered came to light,” Johnson said.

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/crime/article54217090.html#storylink=cpy

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/crime/article54217090.html#storylink=cpy

IF you did what Alexandria did (the one that left her brother alone with the 3 dogs in a crate)  in our opinion, you do deserve to go to jail. Our opinion........... plus you should not own animals either.

In California, they put innocent people in jail for not grooming a dog, or trimming hooves enough, thanks to crazy laws by HSUS... but leaving a kid with 3 bulls in a crate is plain insanity. Three of any larger dogs in a crate is insanity.
 Complete lack of common sense/logic, and reeks of being plain dumb, plus it's not smart to leave a 9yr old alone, besides. Plus other evidence was that the child was previously kicking the dogs and likely taunting or teasing them, and was not supposed to even be alone with them.    http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/crime/article54217090.html

We saw online BELOW,  at a pitbull site that we don't particularly like, but supposedly the data was gleaned from Yuba county news reports...........  http://tinyurl.com/hrjycfz

01/13/16: All Three Pit Bulls Euthanized
On Wednesday, the three pit bulls that savagely attacked and killed a 9-year old boy were euthanized, according to Jerry Read, the Undersheriff for the Yuba County Sheriff’s Department. The pit bulls fatally attacked Tyler Trammell-Huston in a trailer after his sister, 24-year old Alexandria Griffin-Heady, left him alone with the animals for three hours. Tyler was in the foster care system at the time of his death and was on an approved overnight visit with Griffin-Heady.

On the day Tyler was laid to rest, his father, John Huston, filed a claim for damages against Sacramento County Child Protective Services. Huston suffers from a mental incapacity that limited his ability to raise Tyler, according to a news release written by Huston's attorney, Moseley Collins. "As a result, CPS took Tyler from his father," states the release. In an ABC 10 video, Moseley also states, "How is that protecting a child to let him go stay in a trailer with 3 pit bulls, alone? It's not."

Griffin-Heady has maintained since the attack that not all of the dogs were involved and that she is deeply saddened to see two of the dogs also put down. She maintains that the mother pit bull, Coca, and her female offspring, Athena, were insignificantly involved or uninvolved in the fatal pack attack. 

She believes the male offspring, Noah, was the primary attacker, even though both he and Athena were allegedly kenneled when she left that morning. Somehow they both got out.
The Yuba County Sheriff’s Office hopes to have their investigation and report completed by the end of the week to forward to the district attorney's office. 

Whether any criminal charges will be filed is unknown. Griffin-Heady could face child endangerment charges for leaving Tyler alone with her three pit bulls. Tyler's preventable mauling death by his sister's three pit bulls raises many legal and moral questions about who is responsible, if anyone, or are multiple parties to blame.

01/07/16: Father Pursues Lawsuit Against CPS
In a recent article, the Sacramento Bee interviews Tyler's former foster parent, several family members and legal experts. At the time of the fatal pit bull attack, Tyler lived with his foster parent, Gloria Hudson, in Elk Grove. Hudson had concerns about his sister gaining custody of him, but Tyler was so excited at the idea -- and had already been through so much with the loss of his mother in 2011 and bouncing between foster parents -- that Hudson was at peace with it.

Hudson said a judge was going to determine later in January whether Tyler could move in full time with his 24-year old sister, Alexandria Griffin-Heady, and her pit bulls, provided she moved to an apartment. During his school's recent winter break, Tyler spent several weeks with his sister and her dogs in the small trailer parked adjacent to where two of his siblings lived. Hudson was expecting Tyler to return home on Sunday when she got a call from CPS saying he was dead. 

"When Child Protection Services called me, I just screamed." - Gloria Hudson
On Sunday morning, during an overnight weekend visit with his sister, Tyler was attacked and killed by her pit bulls after she left him alone with the dogs for three hours. Tyler's aunt, Laura Badeker, holds CPS largely responsible.

 Badeker had warned CPS that Alexandria was unstable. Tyler's father, John Huston, is pursuing a lawsuit against CPS. Huston is mentally disabled and unable to care for his son, but he visited Tyler regularly, his attorney Moseley Collins said.

Possible Criminal Charges

In a slew of media reports Wednesday night, Alexandria tried her case in front of the media. Gushing regret during a press conference, she said: "There are a thousand things I could have done differently." Alexandria could and should face child endangerment charges after her three pit bulls brutally killed her 9-year old half-brother. At the very least, she needs several years of parole and a strict prohibition from owning any pit bulls and overseeing any child during this period.

As usual in cases like this, in order for Yuba County authorities to bring criminal charges against Alexandria they will likely need evidence that she knew or should have known of the dogs' vicious propensities. Had any of her pit bulls attacked or shown aggression in the past? This may be very difficult to prove since Alexandria lived in multiple places in the country, including in a motel room in Florida with her three pit bulls, prior to moving to Northern California a few months ago.

"[The pit bulls] were my companion animals. They were my babies. What made them do that I will never know." - Pit bull owner, Alexandria Griffin-Heady
The worst offender is Child Protection Services, who failed miserably in their duty to protect Tyler. In some parts of the U.S. child protection agencies will not allow a parent or guardian with pit bulls to care for the child. They will force the relocation of the dogs. This should be the norm, not the exception across all CPS agencies. In this case, and with Alexandria's extremely troubled past, they allowed the boy to live with her in the travel-trailer with quite literally a pack of pit bulls

Below is written by attorney, not the pitbull hater online...........
Note: attorney has worked with animal experts and handled animal law issues, been involved with rescued animals, and has many years of animal law/case research.

The question posed by  "Alexandria", whose dog or dogs allegedly did cause the child's death, is not so much about the dogs themselves,  BUT rather, the lack of knowledge that CPS, Alexandria, and involved parties displayed.........anyone who knows anything about dogs, would never, ever, ever put 3 of them in a crate and leave them with a kid in an enclosed area (trailer, garage, a room, anywhere, including a car!) 

Anyone who has any knowledge of dogs whatsoever, and in particular, any owner of ANY breed of dog that may include guardian breeds, livestock breeds, fighting breeds, protection breeds, or breeds of any size that are over 35lbs,..... should in general, NEVER ever leave ANY child alone with a dog and without adult supervision. 

 Many people will claim you can leave kids with let's say a golden retriever, but even a golden retriever type dog was in her own backyard playing with a NY child and the dog managed to both strangle the child and drag her around the yard until she died, before the parent found her. Even though the dog killed the child, animal activists petitioned Helen Woodward Center in Rancho Santa Fe, CA, a very wealthy San Diego enclave,  and allowed the dog that killed the child to be re-homed with a new owner.  

As an example of how stupid people are, over 200 people applied to get the golden retriever, even knowing it had killed the child.

Dog fatalities these days have risen quite a bit and yes, news reports claim it's mostly alleged "pitbulls", although there is no such breed as "pitbull." Bulls are classified: APBT (American Pitbull Terrrier), American Staffordshire Terrier, Staffordshire Bull Terrier (often called Staffy Bull) and the Bull Terrier (the Target dog with egg shaped head) which is somewhat different. We say alleged pitbulls because many dogs resemble pitbull types but they are not pitbull dogs; furthermore, breeding down dogs mixed with pitbulls can create some questionable attributes in canines.

The pitbull lines are very popular, especially where animal activists and even the American Bar
Association House of Delegates,  have pushed for no "BSL" which is breed specific legislation. BSL means laws are made which makes it either illegal to own a dog on the banned list, or requires such dog to be treated essentially, as a dangerous dog and must always be muzzled, for example. BSL laws have not shown or proven to stop biting dogs necessarily, but over time such laws may stop biting dogs of certain breeds since those breeds cannot be legally owned.

Owners of any dog, and in particular those which are in fact pitbulls, or rescued pitbull, or rehomed pitbull, or any larger dog breed in the guardian , working ,  protection  or fighting line, should always, always always be handled with extreme care and caution. Females in heat and females with puppies are another dangerous situation with non experienced owners when it comes to other male dogs being in close proximity.  This is common sense.

Yet one can go to a dog park and see many bulls, and larger guardian breeds running at large.

Personally, we would NEVER--repeat-- NEVER recommend that an owner or caretaker EVER take a dog of any size or type, to a dog park.  Reason being, your dog may be fine-- but what of everyone else's dog?  Not only are dog parks rife with potential dog poop from dogs that are not vaccinated, your dog may be the friendliest dog on earth and get attacked by someone who just got their rescued dog and knows nothing of its background, including illness, undiagnosed health problems, behavioral problems.  In fact, we would not even recommend walking a dog or letting it run loose unless you own many many acres of land where no other animal can enter, and your dog cannot escape. We say this because we know of quite a few cases where dogs running lose enter the property of others, or even dogs on leash simply lunge out at others walking their dogs on the sidewalk. Make sure to have homeowner's coverage for your dog.

...And with activists continuing to push the theory of everyone obtaining a "rescued" dog, which you know absolutely NOTHING about such dog when you get it--- be forewarned--most fatal dog attacks are caused by  1) rescued  2) rehomed  and 3) shelter dogs. 

In one of the only published books out there, Fatal Dog Attacks, author Delise indicates her belief that dogs kill because they are not socialized and can be on tether. HOWEVER, even Delise's own data indicates that the "mixed breed" was responsible for 71 attacks and pitbull-type 90, at time she wrote the book (2002). Further, mixed breeds have been responsible for fatal killings on infants, children, adults and the elderly, according to Delise. Very very rare are the cases where a puppy obtained by owners (say at 7 weeks) and grew up in the house, killed anyone. Proper breeding of dogs requires that temperament should come first. 

Roberto Marquez, a criminal lawyer representing Alexandria Griffin-Heady, said his client raised her dogs from puppies and was “shocked” that they attacked the boy. “She never thought it possible,” he said.  
        We hate to tell you---- anyone who really knows anything about dogs or breeding of dogs would NEVER put three of them in a crate and leave them there with a child or elderly person who could not fight back. It's just plain stupid, no matter the breed. For Alexandria to have done that shows complete negligence at a minimum. 

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/news/nation-world/national/article53264680.html#storylink=cpy

It is MUCH safer to obtain a puppy from either a breeder who is reputable, a friend that really understands dog breeding, or a group that takes in dogs that have been verified via history, vet, and trainers. Any dogs showing temperament issues should not be bred at all.

Short of that, obtaining an unknown dog is very dangerous, especially if the dog is sizeable.  In fact, the chances of a rehomed dog killing someone is about 500% greater than if dog was a puppy you bought and raised from the start??
If you don't believe it, see Petdefense on Wordpress platform, which has over 2,000 entries on issues of animal activists and animals, animal laws, etc.  https://petdefense.wordpress.com/