|
|
|
Recent Blog Posts in November 2011 |
| November 16, 2011 |
| 2nd Appellate District Severely Limits GRANDPARENT VISITATION Under Family Code Section 3102 |
| Posted By Thurman Arnold, CFLS |
 |
Rich v. Thatcher (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1176
In what reads to me to be a myopic opinion, Justice Yegan of Division Six of the Second Appellate District has declared that biological grandparents have a burden to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that denying them visitation pursuant to
Family Code section 3102 would be detrimental to a child before they can hope to win access to their children's children, when their own child dies. in the face of a "fit" parent's objection. Attaching a burden of proof by "clear and convincing" evidence is usually the kiss of death to any litigant who has that burden.
The appellate decision appears to combine a species of "bad facts make bad law" with a reluctance to discuss the underlying facts that were determined by the Ventura trial court to such an extent that we are left guessing (but possibly not) where the grandmother went wrong, since clearly she made an extremely bad impression on both courts. Hence, my critical feeling towards the decision may be due to sensing that some important information is being withheld from "we the readers" that deserved this draconian outcome, and also from a sense that both the trial court and the appellate are being reactive to undisclosed facts, and that as a consequence a brand new rule has been established in California that will impact many grandparents who are innocent of whatever transgression Ms. Rich may have committed.
And, more important from my perspective, this decision reflects a collision between what the mental health and family sciences believe about taking a generational and cooperative approach to parenting. At this level of the case apparently nobody weighed on behalf of either grandparents specifically, or the family sciences generally - no amicus curie briefs seem to have been sought. I really hope that this decision gets appealed to the California Supreme Court so that we can begin to look at the very important role that grandparents potentially play within families. Unfortunately, grandparents don't seem to have much of an organizational voice. It seems as if the AARP ought to be interested in these issues given their constitutency.
The decision tells us that Carol Rich is the grandmother and that Rochelle Thatcher is the surviving parent ("Thatcher" is a big name in Ventura, but I don't know if there is any relation). Carol's son and Rochelle never married, but they produced a son together in December, 2006. The father died in 2010 of a drug overdose and the decision tells us cryptically that he "left two suicide notes." Grandmother and mother did not "get along", and grandmother apparently accused mother of having something to do with her son's death. "Their hostility was open and clear."
All of this suggests that grandmother had a very hard time accepting her son's death, and that she felt that the mother was in some way responsible. If so, grandmother's position may have reasonably led a trial court to conclude that she would be a destabilizing and even poisonous influence on the minor, but if that is how the justices felt it would be nice if they had said so. Instead they have spanked all grandparents with one flat judicial palm.
Grandmother did get a lengthy hearing in June, 2010, where a number of witnesses were called. At the conclusion the trial court "expressed 'great concern over [grandmother's] veracity.'" It further found that while grandmother had established some relationship with the child, she failed to establish a "deep and abiding relationship." Instead, grandmother's relationship was instead limited to interactions with the grandchild when grandmother was serving to supervised visits ordered in the parties' Paternity case. Hence, it sounds as if this grandmother's relationship with her grandson existed, but that it historically had not been substantial. The child was 4 1/2 at the time of trial.
The trial court imposed a clear and convincing standard on grandmother to "rebut the presumption that Mother is acting in the best interest of [grandchild] in denying visitation to Grandmother at this time or that denial of visitation would be detrimental to [grandchild]." Nonetheless, the trial court continued that in any event "it would not be in [grandchild's] best interest to interject court-ordered visitation with Grandmother, particularly in light of the longstanding animosity between Mother and Grandmother."
Hence, this ruling is another cautionary tale for grandparents - if you so ally yourself with you own child against the person with whom they chose to produce a child, it will hurt you later. Grandparents do too often tend to become allied and enmeshed in their children's lives, and this is a real problem in support cases where parents are paying for their children while those children refuse or fail to become independent and so try to stick the other party with a financial burden - something we will likely see an importance case on soon. But I digress.
Justice Yegan, who clearly does not brook fools,
strongly supports the lower trial courts when they make discretionary calls that are supported by the evidence. Quoting from his own earlier decision this year (see link above), he states in a footnote to this decision "[a]s
we indicated in
In re Marriage of Greenberg
(2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 1095) the trial court's comment on grandmother's veracity is tantamount to an "adverse factual finding." This is a poor platform upon which to predicate a successful appeal. (
Id.
, at p. 1099.)
That is the fact upon which this case really seems to turn. Justice Yegan continues in this decision:
"Grandmother contends that the trial court erred in applying the clear and convincing burden. We disagree with her and agree with the trial court's legal conclusion. We hold as follows: To overcome the presumption that a fit parent will act in the best interest of the grandchild, a grandparent has the burden of proof and must show, by clear and convincing evidence, that denial of visitation is not in the best interest of the grandchild, i.e., denial of visitation would be detrimental to the grandchild. The fair import of the word "detriment" is damage, harm, or loss. (See American Heritage Dict. (2d college ed. 1982) P. 388, col. 2.) If grandparent visitation is in the grandchild's 'best interest,' it is not 'detrimental.' If grandparent visitation is not in the grandchild's 'best interest,' it is 'detrimental.' [citations omitted].
Until today, no appellate court has expressly held that section 3102 requires clear and convincing evidence to overcome the presumption. 'There is some authority for the proposition that the same test which applies to a custody award to a nonparent should apply to a visitation award to a nonparent that is, that "judicially compelled visitation against the wishes of both parents" "must not be allowed unless it is clearly and convincingly shown that denial of visitation would be detrimental to the child." (
In re Marriage of Gayden
(1991) 229 Cal.App.3d 1510, 1517, 1520 ... [involving a motion for visitation by a biologically unrelated person under former Civil Code section 4601 (now
Fenn v. Sherriff
,
supra
, 109 Cal.App.4th at p. 1486; see also dictum in
In re Marriage of W.
,
supra
, 114 Cal.App.4th at p. 74 ['Where natural parents are unified in opposition, nonparental visitation can be ordered only if such visitation is in the best interest of the child
and
denial of visitation would be detrimental to the child'].)
'The degree of burden of proof applied in a particular situation is an expression of the degree of confidence society wishes to require of the resolution of a question of fact. (Citation).' [Citations omitted]. There is no question that a grandparent has an important interest in visiting with a grandchild. But the higher degree of the burden of proof that we adopt simply demonstrates that there is a preference in favor of the presumably correct choice of a fit sole surviving parent. Such choice is 'first.'
In formulating our holding, we are guided by and adopt the cogent analysis of Justice Chin in his concurring and dissenting opinion in
In re Marriage of Harris, supra,
34 Cal.4th at pp. 247-250; see also the concurring and dissenting opinion of Justice Brown at pages 251-253. To adequately protect a fit sole surviving parent's constitutional right to raise a child, a "mere preponderance" burden as to "best interest" is not sufficient. The "clear and convincing" burden, i.e. evidence "so clear as to leave no substantial doubt," promotes a parent's constitutionally protected "first" choice. The higher evidentiary burden preserves the constitutionality of section 3102 and insures against erroneous fact finding. (
Id.,
at p. 248.)
The clear and convincing burden is not insurmountable. We can certainly envision a case where a trial court could factually find and rule that grandparent visitation is appropriate over the objection of the fit sole surviving parent. This, however, is not such a case. The trial court did not credit grandmother's testimony.
Even if the trial court had erroneously applied too strict of a burden for grandmother, we
we would still affirm the order denying visitation based upon the trial court's alternative ruling. As indicated, we commend the trial court for its well-articulated order. First, it ruled that the "clear and convincing" burden was appropriate. This was a debatable issue which we now settle. But it was also prescient in articulating its alternate best interest ruling which is rooted in traditional family law principles. 'We may not reverse . . . simply because [in theory]
some
of the court's reasoning was faulty, so long as
any
of the stated reasons are sufficient to justify the order. [Citation.]' (
Kaldenbach v. Mutual of Omaha Life Ins. Co.
(2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 830, 844.)"
Note to reader - I've added some emphasis to this.
So, we now have a rule that is clearly intended to honor the constitutional issues addressed to some extent in the U.S. Supreme Court's Troxel decision. But the decision omits to discuss any of the legislative history of Family Code section 3102 as to whether the burden of proof that is associated with it is nearly as hard as what the decision makes it become. While "clear and convincing evidence" is not an "insurmountable burden," practically speaking any lawyer will tell you it almost is. Morever, while the decision admits that grandparents have important interests in visiting with grandchildren, it totally ignores the rights of children to know their families of origin. There is no mention that any lawyer was ever appointed for the minor in this case.
This decision should also be evaluated in light of a Fourth Appellate District decision issued less than a month ago. In Hoag v. Diedjomajor the Riverside based appellate district upheld a trial court order for visitation after a grandparent's child died. The burden of proof applied by the Court was not discussed, but was implicitly by a "preponderance of the evidence."
The outcome was the opposite than here, but in many ways it is entirely consistent with Justice Yegan's decision - and here is what is interesting for me: If a parent refuses visitation, even if they don't get along, to spite the grandparent, they lose. But if the grandparent seeks visitation after spiting the non-biological surviving parent, they lose.
And, I wonder, how can a "fit" parent (by definition) deny any access at all between their child and that child's grandparents, especially when the intergenerational parent is dead, except under the most outrageous of circumstances? Yet, having said that, I must confess that if a grandparent does behave outrageously, then their rights should be limited or nonexistent. Oy vey, possibly the record that we will never see discloses that such was the case here - but we must take it on faith, apparently, that it was. I don't see how we need to impose a burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence to ensure that bad grandparents are fenced in - I mean "fenced out".
Another question bothers me - the decision points out that there were nine other witnesses who testified at the trial beyond the grandmother in this case. Did these include the maternal grandparents, who possibly were more favorably received? So often these types of litigation wars can only be funded by older people who have accumulated some wealth. Often these family battles include or are really between parents' parents. I notice that the mother in this case appears to have had premiere local counsel, and that must not have been cheap. The paternal grandmother will foot some of their bill in this case since costs were assessed against her.
But then, of course, other losers as a result of this decision are the grandchildren of grandparents who can behave themselves who may be affected by this new burden of proof. IMHO. But you may disagree - please feel free to comment if you do! |
|
| Continue reading "2nd Appellate District Severely Limits GRANDPARENT VISITATION Under Family Code Section 3102" » |
|
Permalink | Comments(2)  |
| |
| November 13, 2011 |
| Wife Bears Own ATTORNEY FEES In Failed SET ASIDE MOTION Involving MSA |
| Posted By Thurman Arnold, CFLS |
|
Marriage of Guilardi (11/7/11) 200 Cal.App.4th 770
The Sixth District Appellate Court (including Santa Clara County) has upheld a trial court denial of recovery for the attorney fees incurred by and during a former wife's unsuccessful bid to set aside a Marital Settlement Agreement (MSA), based upon express language and implied waivers contained in that agreement (which became incorporated into the Judgment once it was approved by the court), and some misconduct on Wife's part.
Wife sought an award of $157,650 which she had paid (or that possibly remained unpaid) to her attorney, under the "needs" based provisions of Family Code section 2030, even though she incurred them on an underlying motion to set aside the MSA and Judgment that had been determined adversely to her. Her application was made on the basis of fraud, mistake, perjury and noncompliance with the Family Code disclosure requirements - which are standard grounds that
Family Code section 2122 enumerates for setting aside family law judgments. It appears from this decision, which is obtusely written at times, that Wife had waived spousal support in that agreement.
Her motion was filed one day before the one-year statute of limitations expired as to some of those grounds (i.e., mistake). When Wife signed the MSA she was not represented by counsel, and for "reasons known only to her" declined to consult with anyone despite being warned by language in the MSA that she might wish to do so and would be bound by it in any event. The MSA contained two standard provisions that the trial court seized upon in denying Wife recovery of any fees: a) a waiver of all claims under Evidence Code section 1542 and b) a clause that stated that in the event of further litigation arising from the agreement, the prevailing party would be entitled to recover their attorney fees and costs. It did not contain any express waivers of need based or other attorney fee claims, but the trial court implied this waiver from the language and intent of the document.
Unfortunately for Wife, also, the trial court found that she had intentionally destroyed a premarital agreement - although the decision is vague about how the prenup related to the MSA (apparently it too waived spousal support, but the trial court refused to uphold that waiver to the extent it arose in the premarital agreement) - and this fact may be useful to distinguish this decision from other cases, and their lines of reasoning that suggest some courts might reach a different result. (The decision recognizes this split of authority and briefly discusses these other cases). Reference to Wife's destruction of the prenup is also confusing because it was apparently nonetheless litigated so someone must have retained a copy.
So began three years of litigation, and ended after two more years of appellate processes. And lots of attorney fees for both sides.
I have mixed feelings about this decision. Sometimes bad facts make bad law. The decision doesn't tell us what burden of proof the trial court applied in finding a "waiver" of rights - whether by a preponderance of the evidence or by clear and convincing proof - and the additional fact of wife's destroying the Prenup, which the appellate decision repeatedly points out, makes this case muddy in terms of its potential application. I suspect that trial judges who wish to apply this case to fact patterns they see in their courtrooms may apply this holding without regard for similar bad acts in their own cases; in this sense, if indeed wife's destruction of the prenup sealed her fate, as the decision seems to imply, other people's fates may be similarly sealed in the future even in the absence of bad faith. And, is it good public policy to declare that a party who, in good faith, prosecutes a set aside motion should not recover fees if they ultimately lose? The two provisions in this MSA that the trial court relied are pretty much universal in MSA's and Stipulated Judgments for Dissolution and related marital or domestic partnership proceedings. Provisions that might be enforceable in most business or nonmarital contracts, particularly as they relate to power imbalances over the control of property or income that may be controlled by an "in-spouse", arguably should not apply within the family law context.
On the other hand, the fiduciary relationship arising under the fact of the marriage ("de facto" fiduciary relationship) ended when the parties separated and began their divorce battle. This is to be contrasted with the continuing legal obligations ("de jure" fiduciary duties) between the parties that don't end until the community property has been distributed. Additionally, there is a strong public policy interest in the finality of judgments - and this case, extending over 3 years at the trial court level, must have been expensive for the Husband. To have prevailed but still to have been required to pay $156,000 (or some other substantial amount) to Wife for her failed attack seems inherently unfair. This is especially so to the extent that she was destroying documents or otherwise defrauding him or the court. Moreover, Wife did sign the MSA and never apparently satisfactorily explained how this was not her own fault. While she was unrepresented at that time, she made that choice willingly.
Another unanswered question in the reported decision is whether Husband himself sought attorney fees against the Wife as the prevailing party; it seems not. Presumably this is because Wife signed away substantial rights to property and support when she executed the MSA, and so had little to give towards his attorney fees. Notably this was a lengthy 16 year marriage, and it produced a 10 year old daughter. We know nothing about Wife's education, background, or the parties' assets and income.
Incidentally, Wife complained for the first on appeal that the denying her a need's based attorney fee award per Family Code section 2030 was inappropriate given that issues of child custody and support were also determined in the MSA; she did not urge this point in the lower court. The appellate decision implies that such an argument, if properly made, could have caused a different result even if Mom still had lost the set aside application.
This is an important case for protecting the interests of parties once settlement agreements are executed and approved by family court judges. It is also one of those cases that parties who are resisting set aside motions will use to intimidate the other side. It is not at all clear from the decision what would happen where a party files a fee application to underwrite their set aside motion and sets it to be heard before the final determination, i.e., before the other side is determined to have "prevailed." But the implications seem clear. This case should not be considered the final word on the subject. |
|
| Continue reading "Wife Bears Own ATTORNEY FEES In Failed SET ASIDE MOTION Involving MSA" » |
|
| Permalink | Comments(0) |
| |
| November 10, 2011 |
| Proposed 2012 REVISIONS to JUDICIAL COUNCIL FORMS; ATTORNEY FEE REQUESTS |
| Posted By Thurman Arnold, CFLS |
|
Palm Springs Divorce and Family Law Attorney Mark D. Gershenson was kind enough to provide me the Family and Juvenile Law Advisory Committee Report to the Administrative Office of the Courts, Judicial Council of California submitted on October 28, 2011, to become effective on January 1, 2012. I want to share it with you.
Specifically these recommend the adoption of the following new Rules of Court and Judicial Council Forms that will be applied to and used in California family law proceedings:
- Rule 5.93 relating to attorney fee and cost applications, which identifies the steps for a litigant or court to take in requesting, responding to a request for, and awarding fees and costs based upon financial need;
-
Approve optional form FL-157, Spousal or Partner Support Declaration Attachment,
for litigants to use, as an attachment to the
Request for Attorney's Fees and Costs Attachment
(form FL-319),
Declaration for Default or Uncontested Judgment
(form FL-170),
Application for Order
(form FL-310) and
Order to Show Cause
(form FL-300) or
Notice of Motion
(form FL-301) to request that the court award, modify a request, or deny a request for spousal or domestic partner support and to provide supporting facts that address the issuesidentified in Family Code section 4320, which are also required in a request for attorney's fees and costs;
-
Approve optional form FL-158,
Supporting Declaration for Attorney's Fees and Costs Attachment
, for litigants to use, as an attachment to
Request for Attorney's Fees and Costs Attachment
(form FL-319) or
Responsive Declaration to Order to Show Cause or Notice of Motion
(form FL-320), to provide the court with additional background information either in support of or in opposition to a request for needs-based attorney's fees and costs, such as any history of child support, spousal or partner support, or family support orders;
-
Approve optional form FL-319,
Request for Attorney's Fees and Costs Attachment,
for litigants to use, as an attachment to the
Application for Order
(form FL-310) and
Order to Show Cause
(form FL-300) or
Notice of Motion
(form FL-301), to request that the court award needs-based attorney's fees and costs;
-
Approve optional form FL -346
Attorney's Fees and Costs Order Attachment
, for the court to use, as an attachment to
Findings and Order After Hearing
(form FL-340),
Judgment (form FL-180), or Judgment (Uniform Parentage-Custody and Support)
(form FL-250), to identify court findings and orders with respect to needs-based attorney's fees and costs; and
-
Revise mandatory form FL-340,
Findings and Order After Hearing
, to improve organization and numbering, add clarifying language in item 1, add a reference to "parenting time" in item 2, add "Other" check boxes in items 2-6, add a check box for the court to attach new form FL-346 (see item 5 of this recommendation) in item 6, and add a check box for the court to order a continuance in item 9.
For your convenience I have uploaded the October 28, 2011, Report to the Judicial Council here. This includes the proposed forms. |
|
| Continue reading "Proposed 2012 REVISIONS to JUDICIAL COUNCIL FORMS; ATTORNEY FEE REQUESTS" » |
|
| Permalink | Comments(0) |
| |
|
|
|
|