California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Orange Cnty. Soc. Servs. Agency v. Elizabeth C. (In re Clarissa R.), G048455 (Cal. App. 2014):
Nothing in either subdivision mandates that a juvenile court must or shall utilize them to the exclusion of its inherent power to issue orders protecting a parent or child. To the contrary, the use of the word "may" in both subdivisions indicates their application is permissive, not mandatory. (Montgomery v. Superior Court (1975) 46 Cal.App.3d 657, 666-667.) The court duly considered mother's request for a restraining order under section 213.5 and Family Code section 6345, but denied it after concluding she did not demonstrate the necessary requirements. That does not mean it was thereafter precluded from using its inherent power to "'ensure the orderly administration of justice'" or "prevent abuses that could undermine the proper administration of justice" by issuing the stay-away order. (In re M.B., supra, 201 Cal.App.4th at p. 1064.)
Page 11
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.