Gregory D. v. Linda D.
153 Cal. Rptr. 3d 657
Cal. Ct. App.2013Background
- Gregory is a developmentally disabled adult in his mid-20s who resides in a supported living arrangement under a limited conservatorship.
- Linda and Joseph D. were Gregory’s parents; they were divorced and alternated residence with Gregory.
- Linda was appointed as Gregory’s limited conservator in 2005 after a settlement with Joseph, granting her powers including fixing residence and accessing records.
- Subsequent disputes led to multiple replacements of conservators and court appointments, including Cotterman, then the Hitchmans, with various orders governing visitation and services.
- Gaulke filed a petition for instructions to guide the new conservators in 2011; Linda objected to several aspects of the petition, including powers and privacy concerns; the trial court issued orders on November 18, 2011 and Linda appealed on December 8, 2011.
- Linda appeals the November 18, 2011 order but the issue before the court is Linda’s standing to appeal, not the merits of Gregory’s rights or the order itself.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Linda has appellate standing to challenge the order | Linda asserts errors affecting Gregory’s rights. | Court held Linda lacks standing to appeal for Gregory who did not appeal. | Linda has no standing; appeal dismissed. |
| Whether Linda’s status as a parent conferred standing | Linda contends her role gives standing to protect Gregory’s rights. | Standing requires aggrieved party; Linda is not personally aggrieved. | Parent status does not confer standing to appeal when the non-appealing party is Gregory. |
| Whether Probate Code section 1829 confers standing to appeal | Probate Code 1829 allows Linda to participate in proceeding. | Statutory participation does not equal Appellate standing under CCP 902. | Section 1829 does not confer appellate standing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jennifer T. v. Superior Court, 159 Cal.App.4th 254 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) (standing to appeal requires aggrievement)
- Shaw v. Hughes Aircraft Co., 83 Cal.App.4th 1336 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000) (twofold test: party of record and aggrieved)
- Rebney v. Wells Fargo Bank, 220 Cal.App.3d 1117 (Cal. Ct. App. 1990) (standing to appeal is jurisdictional; injurious effect to nonappealing coparties not enough)
- Estrada v. RPS, Inc., 125 Cal.App.4th 976 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005) (injury to nonappealing party does not grant standing)
- Niles v. City of San Rafael, 42 Cal.App.3d 230 (Cal. Ct. App. 1974) (injury requirement for aggrievement in appeals)
- El Dorado Irrigation Dist. v. State Water Resources Control Bd., 142 Cal.App.4th 937 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) (aggrievement-based standing referenced in appellate context)