Smith v. Smith
208 Cal. App. 4th 1074
Cal. Ct. App.2012Background
- Shaun Smith and Tiffany Smith are in a custody dispute over their son proceeding in Placer County after prior El Dorado County orders; the family court issued an order redacting references to Shaun's juvenile records in two reports and keeping the reports in confidential folders.
- Shaun sought to seal and destroy the Sloper mediation report and Moore substance abuse evaluation due to juvenile-record references; the family court declined and referred to the juvenile court for sealing.
- A juvenile court sealed Shaun's juvenile records on August 20, 2010; in September 2010 Shaun sought seal/destroy remedies in family court, which led to a September 22, 2010 juvenile court modification granting broader sealing.
- Dugan’s August 9, 2010 custody evaluation recommended joint custody after analyzing current parental conflict; it did not rely on Shaun’s juvenile records.
- The November 10, 2010 order redacted juvenile-record references in Sloper and Moore reports (not in Dugan’s report); Shaun appealed that order but the November 17, 2010 minute order granting temporary custody was nonappealable and the appeal on that item was dismissed.
- The appellate court affirmed the redaction order, dismissed the temporary custody appeal, and held the challenged reports were not destroyed because they were not juvenile records themselves and the redactions did not prejudice Shaun.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Appealability of the redaction order | Shaun: order to redact is appealable collateral order | Tiffany: no argument provided here, but court must determine appealability | Appealable collateral order; not a final judgment but final action to redact |
| Effect of juvenile-record references on custody determinations | Shaun: references unlawful and prejudicial | Tiffany: reports focused on parenting ability, not juvenile records | No prejudice; custody recommendations based on communication and best interests, not juvenile records |
| Destruction of the reports | Shaun: juvenile-order to destroy applicable to all related records | Tiffany: reports are not juvenile records themselves; sealing/destroying not required | Family court not obligated to destroy the reports; redaction proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Providian Credit Card Cases, 96 Cal.App.4th 292 (Cal. App. 2002) (unsealing documents as collateral matter in relief of litigation)
- Lester v. Lennane, 84 Cal.App.4th 536 (Cal. App. 2000) (collateral order doctrine; test for nonfinal but essential order)
- In re Marriage of Skelley, 18 Cal.3d 365 (Cal. 1976) (collateral issue deemed nonfinal if essential to main issue)
- In re Providian Credit Card Cases, 96 Cal.App.4th 292 (Cal. App. 2002) (unsealing/handling of confidential documents as collateral order)
- Banning v. Newdow, 119 Cal.App.4th 438 (Cal. App. 2004) (minute order not appealable when a formal order is required)
- Keith R. v. Superior Court, 174 Cal.App.4th 1047 (Cal. App. 2009) (domestic violence orders and custody considerations in appellate context)
- In re Elijah S., 125 Cal.App.4th 1532 (Cal. App. 2005) (confidentiality and access to juvenile records)
- Mercury Interactive Corp. v. Klein, 158 Cal.App.4th 60 (Cal. App. 2007) (appealability of access to confidential documents)