C.D. v. S.L. CA4/1
D076157
| Cal. Ct. App. | Feb 17, 2022Background
- S.L. (mother) repeatedly accused C.D. (father) of physically/sexually abusing their son G.L.; numerous Child Welfare reports were made over years and were closed as unfounded.
- In 2018–2019 S.L. sought multiple domestic violence restraining orders (DVROs) against C.D. for herself and purportedly on behalf of G.L.; the trial court denied temporary relief on May 9 and May 16, 2019.
- S.L. repeatedly applied to be appointed G.L.’s limited guardian ad litem to seek a protective order; the court denied appointment based on a conflict and appointed minor’s counsel instead.
- C.D. filed for a DVRO against S.L.; after an evidentiary hearing the trial court found by a preponderance that S.L. committed domestic violence (mental/harassing conduct) and issued a three‑year DVRO against S.L. on June 26, 2019.
- S.L. appealed the May 9, May 16, and June 26, 2019 orders raising claims including privacy/records misuse, lack of standing to represent the child, ineffective assistance by minor’s counsel, evidentiary errors, and constitutional violations.
- The Court of Appeal limited review to those three orders, found the appellate record inadequate in many respects, and affirmed all three orders.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (S.L.) | Defendant's Argument (C.D.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Did the court err by denying S.L.’s request for a TRO (May 9, 2019)? | Court failed to protect G.L.; TRO was needed based on allegations and past reports. | Trial court heard testimony, found C.D. more credible, and vacated the ex parte TRO; visitation orders should remain. | Affirmed: insufficient appellate record to overturn; trial court credibility determination and discretion sustained. |
| 2. Could S.L. be appointed G.L.’s limited guardian ad litem and seek a TRO on his behalf (May 16, 2019)? | As G.L.’s mother, S.L. had standing to represent him for protective relief. | S.L. had a potential conflict of interest; minor may appear or be represented; court appointed independent counsel. | Affirmed: court did not abuse discretion in denying appointment due to conflict and appointing minor’s counsel. |
| 3. Were S.L.’s privacy/records and related constitutional claims (use/disclosure of child‑welfare, juvenile, medical records) valid? | Trial court improperly used confidential records and violated privacy/due process/CPRA/CCPA/Child Abuse Reporting Act rights. | Record on appeal lacks the referenced records or transcripts showing reliance; no basis to review. | Affirmed: appellate record inadequate to evaluate claims; no reversible error shown. |
| 4. Was the three‑year DVRO against S.L. (June 26, 2019) unsupported or affected by ineffective assistance/evidentiary errors? | Insufficient proof; minor’s counsel ineffective; evidentiary exclusions harmed S.L. | C.D. produced emails and evidence of harassment; court found harassment/domestic violence by preponderance; evidentiary objections not shown in record. | Affirmed: substantial evidence and trial discretion support the DVRO; ineffective‑assistance and evidentiary claims cannot be reviewed on inadequate record. |
Key Cases Cited
- Nakamura v. Parker, 156 Cal.App.4th 327 (2007) (denial of domestic‑violence temporary restraining order is appealable).
- Burquet v. Brumbaugh, 223 Cal.App.4th 1140 (2014) (appellate review of factual findings uses substantial‑evidence standard).
- In re Marriage of Fregoso & Hernandez, 5 Cal.App.5th 698 (2016) (statutory purpose and scope of DVPA).
- Sargon Enterprises, Inc. v. Univ. of Southern Cal., 55 Cal.4th 747 (2012) (abuse of discretion defined as decision no reasonable person could make).
- Rodriguez v. Menjivar, 243 Cal.App.4th 816 (2015) (mental abuse/harassment is relevant under the DVPA).
- Perez v. Torres‑Hernandez, 1 Cal.App.5th 389 (2016) (harassment may be restrained under DVPA like physical abuse).
- Williams v. Superior Court, 147 Cal.App.4th 36 (2007) (parent cannot control child’s litigation when an actual/potential conflict exists).
- Gee v. American Realty & Constr., 99 Cal.App.4th 1412 (2002) (inadequate appellate record defaults to affirmance).
- Estate of Fain, 75 Cal.App.4th 973 (1999) (absence of reporter’s transcript precludes challenge to evidentiary sufficiency).
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (standard for ineffective assistance of counsel).