Vanleeuwen v. E.B.R. CA4/2
E075791
| Cal. Ct. App. | May 4, 2022Background
- Appellant Robert Michael Vanleeuwen (alias Tafoya) filed a June 13, 2019 petition to establish a parental relationship with M.R., a child born in 2007; he sought custody and visitation and alleged he had long held himself out as the child’s father.
- Family court initially entered a default visitation order (Sept. 10, 2019) and appellant later obtained a three-year domestic violence restraining order against Mother (Aug. 29, 2019); the District Attorney’s Child Abduction Unit later sought reconsideration and DNA testing was ordered.
- The DA filed criminal charges against Vanleeuwen alleging attempted kidnapping, stalking, forgery, and perjury based on filings and proofs of service in the family case; the criminal proceedings included contested credibility findings about proofs of service.
- On Aug. 12, 2020 (Vanleeuwen in custody and self-represented; Mother not present), the family court limited appellant’s speaking (citing Fifth Amendment concerns), found DNA showed he was not the biological father, dismissed his parental-relationship petition, and set aside the restraining order—actions taken without a full hearing on service or notice to Mother.
- On appeal the Court of Appeal concluded the family court erred by effectively ordering silence (chilling appellant’s right to be heard) and by setting aside the restraining order without notice; it reversed both orders and directed the family court to issue orders to show cause concerning proofs of service and the restraining order. The panel did not resolve the paternity/DNA merits because the record was inadequate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the family court improperly prevented Vanleeuwen from speaking at the Aug. 12, 2020 hearing (Fifth Amendment / due process / right to present evidence) | Vanleeuwen argued the court effectively compelled silence, denying his rights to a fair hearing, confrontation, compulsory process, and to testify; he wanted to call witnesses (e.g., process servers) and present service evidence | Family court (and DA presence) argued admonition was to protect appellant from self-incrimination given pending criminal charges based on the same filings | Court held the court went beyond a neutral Fifth Amendment advisement and effectively ordered silence; reversal of dismissal and ordered a new hearing where appellant may present evidence, particularly on service; but recognized some ex parte/communication concerns requiring a proper hearing on service |
| Whether the family court erred by setting aside the Aug. 29, 2019 restraining order without notice | Vanleeuwen argued no error in setting aside orders; he asserted service occurred and procedures were followed | Family court concluded Mother likely was not properly served and acted to set aside the restraining order at the Aug. 12 hearing | Court held setting aside the restraining order without notice violated due process; reversed and directed court to issue an order to show cause to Vanleeuwen on whether the restraining order should be vacated for failure to serve Mother and defective proof of service |
| Whether DNA results sufficiently disproved appellant’s biological paternity | Vanleeuwen contended biological relationship was not sufficiently disproved and claimed parental relationship independent of biology | Family court relied on DNA results (as reported by DA investigator) to find appellant not biological father and dismissed petition | Court declined to decide merits because the record was deficient (no reporter transcript of earlier proceedings and no DNA result in the record); appeal as to paternity fails for inadequate record |
| Miscellaneous claims (impropriety of DA involvement; conspiracy; failure to investigate child welfare) | Vanleeuwen raised these additional claims on appeal | Respondent/record did not substantively develop these claims; some issues were not raised below | Court refused to reach the DA/conspiracy claims as relief would not change outcome, and deemed welfare-investigation claim forfeited for lack of record citation |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Barnum, 29 Cal.4th 1210 (explains limits and required neutrality when giving Fifth Amendment advisements)
- Lovato v. Santa Fe Internat. Corp., 151 Cal.App.3d 549 (vacating or reopening when a party was prevented from fully presenting case)
- Gamet v. Blanchard, 91 Cal.App.4th 1276 (‘‘do-over’’ appropriate when proceedings diverge from fair process)
- Edward W. v. Lamkins, 99 Cal.App.4th 516 (due process requires notice reasonably calculated to apprise interested parties)
- Roth v. Jelly, 45 Cal.App.5th 655 (independent review of procedural due process claims)
- Holloway v. Quetel, 242 Cal.App.4th 1425 (balancing court duties when plaintiff is incarcerated and self-represented)
- Huntingdon v. Crowley, 64 Cal.2d 647 (party asserting parentage bears burden of proof when initiating petition)
- Dreyer's Grand Ice Cream, Inc. v. County of Kern, 218 Cal.App.4th 828 (standards when appeal turns on failure of proof)