Hoag v. Diedjomahor
200 Cal. App. 4th 1008
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Grandmother seeks visitation with grandchildren after the death of the parents, invoking Troxel v. Granville framework.
- Trial court found the surviving parent's reasons for objecting to visitation not credible and that visitation would be in the children’s best interests.
- Father, who was fit and temporarily disabled, opposed meaningful visitation and contested the schedule; CPS investigation found no concerns.
- Guardianship proceedings and prior visitation orders established ongoing, court-supervised visitation; the grandmother resided with the family for periods and aided in caregiving.
- Appellate court analyzed Troxel and California authorities, concluding that a fit parent's decisions are not immune from judicial review but can be overcome by evidence showing the best interests and the parent’s objective was retaliation rather than child welfare.
- Court affirmed the visitation order, holding that the presumption in favor of the parent’s best interests was overcome by credible findings that the father’s objections were not in the children’s best interests.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court could grant visitation over the surviving parent's objections. | Diedjomahor active opposition warranted court-ordered visitation. | Troxel preserves parental rights and requires special weight for a fit parent's decisions. | Yes; visitation upheld, as objections not credible and best interests favored visitation. |
| Whether a presumption in favor of the surviving parent’s decisions applies when the parent is not unfit. | Presumption should favor the parent's best interests. | Troxel requires special weight to the parent's determination but not immunity from review. | Presumption overcome by findings showing lack of credibility of objections; court could order visitation. |
| Whether the trial court erred in evaluating the father's reasons for objecting to visitation as credible. | Father’s objections reflect real concerns about visitation. | Objections were pretextual; retaliation against grandmother, not child welfare. | No error; reasons deemed unreasonable/not credible; visitation affirmed. |
| Whether requiring prior voluntary negotiation of visitation is a prerequisite to court-ordered visitation. | Parent should have opportunity to negotiate before petitioning. | Troxel and Punsly do not require precondition; order permissible after opportunities to negotiate. | Not required; court could proceed given prior negotiations and mediation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (Supreme Court, 2000) (parents have fundamental right to raise children; state cannot override without compelling reason)
- Zasueta v. Zasueta, 102 Cal.App.4th 1242 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002) (court erred by dismissing parent’s concerns about grandparent visitation)
- Punsly v. Ho, 87 Cal.App.4th 1099 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001) (presumption in favor of surviving parent’s best interests; voluntary negotiation required)
- Kyle O. v. Donald R., 85 Cal.App.4th 848 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000) (surviving parent fit and open to visitation; court should not override without substantial evidence)
- Fenn v. Sheriff, 109 Cal.App.4th 1466 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003) (Troxel does not immunize fit parent decisions from judicial review; meaningful visitation can weigh in favor)
- Guardianship of L.V., 136 Cal.App.4th 481 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) (presumption in favor of parent’s decisions; must be given special weight but not binding)