Olivares v. County of Stanislaus
2:22-cv-00753-KJM-KJN
E.D. Cal.Dec 20, 2022Background:
- Plaintiffs are McKenzie and Dylan Olivares and their three minor children, alleging constitutional violations arising from the temporary removal of the children.
- Plaintiffs previously moved to appoint McKenzie as guardian ad litem for the minors; the court denied that motion on October 12, 2022 and plaintiffs renewed the request.
- The court considers guardian ad litem appointments subject to discretion, guided by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(b) and state law; parents are generally presumed fit but may be disqualified if an actual or potential conflict with the child exists.
- The court identified a potential conflict between McKenzie and her children based on the underlying allegations and the protective custody warrant that led to removal.
- Plaintiffs did not dispute the existence of a potential conflict but argued the rule unfairly prevents parents from serving and claimed most similar cases allow parental guardians; the court found those arguments unpersuasive.
- The court denied the renewed motion to appoint McKenzie as guardian ad litem and instructed plaintiffs’ counsel to file a new motion to appoint a guardian ad litem within 14 days. The order is dated December 20, 2022.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether McKenzie should be appointed guardian ad litem for her children | McKenzie should serve as guardian; parents suing child-welfare agencies are routinely allowed to represent children | A potential conflict exists given allegations surrounding McKenzie and the protective custody warrant; state law permits denying a parent as guardian when conflict exists | Denied. Court found a potential conflict and declined to appoint McKenzie under California law and Rule 17(b) |
| Whether the court may ignore or change the California potential-conflict standard | Court should not apply an absolute bar and plaintiffs contend the standard is not commonly applied | Court must follow Federal Rule 17(b) and California authority; it lacks power to change state-law standards | Denied. Court refused to alter or ignore the applicable California standard; plaintiffs failed to show misapplication |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. 30.64 Acres of Land, 795 F.2d 796 (9th Cir. 1986) (trial court has broad discretion to appoint a guardian ad litem)
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) (fit parents are presumed to act in the best interests of their children)
- Williams v. Superior Court of San Diego County, 147 Cal. App. 4th 36 (2007) (a parent may not control a child’s litigation when an actual or potential conflict of interest exists)