47 Cal.App.5th 395
Cal. Ct. App.2020Background
- Dolores (adult daughter) sued Rochelle (granddaughter and Lucy’s conservator) and Jesse, alleging they unduly influenced Lucy (her mother/conservatee) beginning in 2015, causing Lucy to sever her relationship with Dolores, block visits, prevent attendance at the funeral, and not notify Dolores promptly of Lucy’s death in 2016.
- The First Amended Complaint (FAC) asserted multiple causes of action arising from that conduct: intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), intentional interference with parental consortium, conspiracy, elder abuse, false light invasion of privacy, and assault/battery claims against Jesse.
- Trial court granted judgment on the pleadings dismissing the parental-consortium claim and later granted judgment on the pleadings as to IIED, conspiracy, elder abuse, and false light as effectively arising from the same barred theory; Dolores then voluntarily dismissed the remaining assault/battery counts and judgment entered for defendants.
- On appeal Dolores argued (inter alia) that age should not limit a parental-consortium claim, that her other torts alleged independent harms, and that the court abused discretion by refusing a five‑day continuance; the Court of Appeal affirmed.
- The court relied on the 1939 Civil Code amendments (which omitted parental-abduction language and enacted the anti–heart‑balm statute) and controlling precedent holding that claims seeking damages for a parent’s alienation/abduction by persuasion are barred and cannot be recast by labeling as other torts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the FAC states a cause of action for intentional interference with parental consortium | Age of child should not matter; adult child may recover for intentional interference with parent relationship | Claim is barred by statute and precedent (Rudley) that eliminated parental‑abduction/alienation claims | Dismissed: FAC alleges persuasion/alienation of a parent and is barred under existing law regardless of plaintiff’s age |
| Whether IIED, conspiracy, elder‑abuse, and false‑light claims survive when based on the same conduct | Those torts allege distinct harms (emotional distress, dignity, reputation, familial loss) and are independent | Those causes merely repurpose the barred parental‑alienation theory and are duplicative/backdoor attempts to recover banned damages | Dismissed: claims arise from the same primary wrong (turning parent against child) and cannot avoid the statutory bar by recharacterization |
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying a five‑day continuance after granting judgments on the pleadings | Needed five days; denial made remaining dismissal involuntary | Court offered two days; plaintiff declined and voluntarily dismissed remaining counts | No abuse: two‑day continuance reasonable under facts; dismissal was voluntary |
Key Cases Cited
- Rudley v. Tobias, 84 Cal.App.2d 454 (1948) (Legislature’s 1939 code changes removed causes of action for parental abduction/alienation and bars suits seeking loss of a parent’s affection)
- Rosefield v. Rosefield, 221 Cal.App.2d 431 (1963) (recognizes intentional interference with parental consortium where a child was physically abducted; distinguished from parental‑alienation cases)
- Borer v. American Airlines, Inc., 19 Cal.3d 441 (1977) (no negligent parental‑consortium claim for children; footnote preserves a narrow intentional‑interference tort for child‑abduction‑type conduct)
- Baxter v. Superior Court, 19 Cal.3d 461 (1977) (similar to Borer; footnote acknowledges limited intentional‑interference recognition in child‑abduction contexts)
- Richelle L. v. Roman Catholic Archbishop, 106 Cal.App.4th 257 (2003) (courts should not allow plaintiffs to evade statutory bans on heart‑balm‑type claims by relabeling them as other torts)