BIANKA M., a Minor, etc., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Respondent; GLADYS M., Real Party in Interest.
S233757
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA
August 16, 2018
Ct.App. 2/3 B267454; Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BF052072
At the age of 10, petitioner Bianka M., a native and citizen of Honduras, entered the United States unaccompanied and without prior authorization. After a brief detention by federal authorities, she was reunited with her mother, who had left Honduras for the United States many years before. In a family court action naming her mother as the respondent, Bianka asked for an order placing her in her mother’s sole custody. She also asked the court to issue findings that would enable her to seek “special immigrant juvenile” status under federal immigration law—a classification that permits immigrant children who have been abused, neglected, or abandoned by one or both parents to apply for lawful permanent residence while remaining in the United States. (See
The superior court denied Bianka’s requests. The court concluded it could not issue either a custody order or findings relevant to special immigrant juvenile status unless Bianka first established a basis for exercising personal jurisdiction over her father and joined him as a party to the action. The Court of Appeal upheld the ruling. We granted review to determine whether the superior court properly required the child’s nonresident, noncustodial parent to be joined as a party in her parentage action seeking special immigrant juvenile findings. We also consider whether, as certain language in the Court of Appeal’s opinion might suggest, the child’s perceived immigration-related motivations for filing the action have any bearing on whether the action may proceed. Our answer to both questions is no. Provided that the absent parent has received adequate notice, the action may proceed even if the parent is beyond the personal jurisdiction of the court and cannot be joined as a party. The action may also proceed regardless of whether the court believes it was filed primarily for the purpose of obtaining the protections from abuse, neglect, or abandonment that federal immigration law provides. We reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeal and remand for further proceedings.
I.
A.
The facts are taken from Bianka’s petition and supporting documentation. Bianka was born in 2002 in Honduras to Gladys M. In 2005, Gladys moved to the United States in search of better employment opportunities, leaving Bianka in the care of an older daughter. Despite the physical distance between them, Bianka and Gladys maintained a close relationship. Gladys frequently called to check on Bianka’s well-being and sent half of her weekly income for Bianka’s care.
Bianka’s father is Jorge L., a resident of Honduras. Gladys and Jorge had a 15-year relationship but were never married. During their relationship, the pair had four children together, of whom Bianka is the youngest. Their relationship ended around the time Bianka was born, and Jorge has refused to develop a relationship with Bianka. According to Bianka and Gladys, Jorge has rejected several desperate pleas for financial support. Gladys also claims that Jorge often physically abused her, once using the blunt end of a machete to beat her while she was pregnant with Bianka.
When Bianka left Honduras for the United States at the age of 10, she sought to escape the rampant violence in her home country and reunite with her mother. Bianka asserts that there are no longer relatives in a position to take care of her in Honduras. Federal immigration officials initially detained Bianka at the border, but she was later released to Gladys’s custody. Bianka now resides with Gladys in Los Angeles.
B.
Bianka initiated this action under the Uniform Parentage Act (UPA;
Congress first established the SIJ classification in 1990 to provide relief to immigrant children who were eligible for long-term foster care and whose interests would not be served by returning to their country of origin. (Immigration Act of 1990, Pub.L. No. 101–649 (Nov. 29, 1990) 104 Stat. 4978.) Congress has since amended the provisions governing SIJ status several times. In the most recent amendment, passed in 2008, Congress eliminated the requirement that the child be found eligible for foster care. (William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008, Pub.L. No. 110–457, § 235(d)(1)(A) (Dec. 23, 2008), 122 Stat. 5044.) Under the law as amended, a child is eligible for SIJ status if: (1) the child is a dependent of a juvenile court, in the custody of a state agency by court order, or in the custody of an individual or entity appointed by the court; (2) the child cannot reunify with one or both parents due to abuse, neglect, abandonment, or a similar basis found under state law;2 and (3) it is not in the child’s best interest to return to his or her home country or the home country of his or her parents. (
SIJ applications are reviewed by the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS), an agency within DHS. (See
To provide a basis for SIJ-eligible children to secure the necessary state court findings, the California Legislature in 2014 enacted
In the declaration attached to her petition, Bianka has asserted that her father, Jorge, had abandoned her before birth and that there are no other relatives available to take care of her in Honduras. In a separate declaration, Gladys has similarly asserted that Jorge is Bianka’s father and had abandoned her before birth. Gladys attached to her declaration a copy of Bianka’s birth certificate listing Jorge as Bianka’s father. Bianka asks the court to find, among other things, that she cannot reunify with her father because of his abandonment and that it is not in her best interest to return to Honduras.
C.
After filing her petition, Bianka requested the appointment of a guardian ad litem to represent her interests; she served both Gladys and Jorge with the application via mail. (
Following the hearing, the superior court denied Bianka’s request for order on the ground that it could not be adjudicated without joining Jorge as a party to the action. The court reasoned that joinder was required because Bianka’s request to award sole custody to Gladys affected Jorge’s potential custody rights. The court also concluded that Jorge’s joinder was required in order to make the requested SIJ finding that reunification with Jorge was not viable because of his abandonment. The court acknowledged that there was no evidence to indicate that it had personal jurisdiction over Jorge, who lives in Honduras. The court nevertheless denied Bianka’s request “without prejudice to further application after [Jorge] has been properly joined, personal jurisdiction issues have been resolved and a determination of parentage is made.”
Bianka sought appellate review by petition for writ of mandate. The Court of Appeal denied the petition. As an initial matter, the court held that Bianka’s request for order was premature because the superior court had yet to determine Gladys’s parentage, a prerequisite to an order granting custody to Gladys. But because the record evidence suggests that there is unlikely to be a dispute regarding whether Gladys is in fact Bianka’s mother, the court went on to address the merits of the superior court’s ruling on joinder.
The Court of Appeal observed that Bianka’s petition is unusual in that it involves an uncontested parentage action between a child and her natural mother. Although nothing in the statutory scheme forbids such an action, the Court of Appeal held that the superior court was within its discretion to insist that Jorge be joined as a party. The Court of Appeal reasoned that “[b]y requesting an order giving her mother sole legal and physical custody predicated on Jorge’s abuse and abandonment, Bianka is impliedly asking the court to adjudicate Jorge’s custody rights (if any),” as well as his status as Bianka’s father. The appellate court noted that the superior court was “understandably reluctant” to make such findings in an action to which Jorge was not a party. The Court of Appeal also concluded that the superior court acted within its discretion to attempt to give Jorge “a meaningful opportunity” to refute Bianka’s allegation that Jorge “abandoned” her—a term the appellate court understood to refer to whether Jorge had left Bianka “without provision for reasonable and necessary care or supervision.” (
II.
A.
The primary issue in this case concerns the application of the rules governing when an absent person or entity must be joined as a party in a civil action. Although the issue arises in the context of what the Court of Appeal termed a “novel” parentage suit, the governing rules are familiar.
In any parentage action under the UPA, there may be multiple parties involved, including the child and his or her “natural,” “presumed,” and “alleged” parents. (
All other individuals who may be parents, but whose maternity or paternity has neither been established nor presumed, are referred to as ” ‘alleged’ ” parents. (In re Zacharia D. (1993) 6 Cal.4th 435, 449, fn. 15.)
By statute, all three categories of parents are entitled to notice of the parentage action and an opportunity to be heard, if they so desire. (
The UPA does not, however, mandate that all parents be made parties to the action. As a rule, of course, a court may adjudicate the rights and responsibilities only of the parties before it; a parent therefore must be named as a party if the parentage action seeks to establish a legal relationship between that parent and the child. (See, e.g., County of San Diego v. Gorham (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 1215, 1227 (Gorham); cf. Kulko v. California Superior Court (1978) 436 U.S. 84, 91.)
Beyond that basic background rule, however, the UPA imposes no general requirement of parental participation: While a child who is 12 or older “shall . . . be made a party to the action,” the statute provides that parents—whether natural, presumed, or alleged—and younger children “may be made parties,” depending on the circumstances. (
In civil litigation generally, the question whether a person must be joined as a party to a suit is governed by the compulsory joinder statute,
To guide implementation of these general joinder principles in the family law context, the Judicial Council has promulgated rule 5.24 of the California Rules of Court. As relevant here, rule 5.24, under the heading “Mandatory joinder,” provides that a court must order that a person be joined as a party to a family court proceeding “if the court discovers that person has physical custody or claims custody or visitation rights with respect to any minor child of the marriage, domestic partnership, or to any minor child of the relationship.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.24(e)(1)(A).) Under the heading “Permissive joinder,” rule 5.24 provides that a court may order that a person be joined as a party “if the court finds that it would be appropriate to determine the particular issue in the proceeding and that the person to be joined as a party is either indispensable for the court to make an order about that issue or is necessary to the enforcement of any judgment rendered on that issue.” (Id., rule 5.24(e)(2).) “In deciding whether it is appropriate to determine the particular issue in the proceeding, the court must consider its effect upon the proceeding, including: [¶] (A) Whether resolving that issue will unduly delay the disposition of the proceeding; [¶] (B) Whether other parties would need to be joined to make an effective judgment between the parties; [¶] (C) Whether resolving that issue will confuse other issues in the proceeding; and [¶] (D) Whether the joinder of a party to determine the particular issue will complicate, delay, or otherwise interfere with the effective disposition of the proceeding.” (Ibid.)
Because the determination of whether a person or entity must be joined as a party to a civil action is a case-specific inquiry that ” ‘weighs “factors of practical realities and other considerations,” ’ ” a trial court’s ruling on joinder is reviewed for abuse of discretion. (TG Oceanside, L.P. v. City of Oceanside (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 1355, 1366.)
B.
In this parentage action, Bianka seeks to establish a parent-child relationship with her mother, Gladys, as well as SIJ findings concerning, among other things, her alleged father, Jorge. By statute, she was required to notify Jorge of the pendency of the action, and she complied with this requirement by mailing her petition and supporting documents to him and following up by telephone. Although the Court of Appeal suggested in passing that the notice was inadequate because it did not specifically alert Jorge to Bianka’s request for SIJ findings, the record reflects that Bianka in fact did inform Jorge of her intent to seek such findings, including a finding that he had abandoned her. Although the specific factual allegations supporting Bianka’s claims were not included in her petition or request for order, they were included in the attached proposed order, as well as Bianka’s and Gladys’s declarations. All of these documents, which were served on Jorge more than a month before the hearing, identify with adequate specificity the nature of the findings Bianka seeks from the superior court.
Despite being notified of the action, however, Jorge has taken no steps to participate. The question is whether Bianka must nevertheless join Jorge as a party in order to proceed. The superior court held that she must—even though the court also acknowledged that the record contains no basis for exercising personal jurisdiction over Jorge, who resides out of the country. The Court of Appeal upheld the ruling on alternative grounds, concluding that the superior court acted within its discretion in ordering Jorge’s joinder under the permissive joinder provision of rule 5.24(e)(2) of the California Rules of Court. We conclude that both courts erred.
1.
Under the compulsory joinder statute, the basic rule is that, ” ‘[w]henever feasible, the persons materially interested in the subject of an action . . . should be joined as parties so that they may be heard and a complete disposition made.’ ” (Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. v. Superior Court (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 785, 793; see
In a family law action, the mandatory joinder provision of rule 5.24(e) of the California Rules of Court identifies one category of persons who, by definition, are materially interested in the action and are therefore necessary parties: those who have physical custody of the child or make a claim to custody or visitation after being served with notice of the pending action. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.24(e)(1)(A).) A person who claims custody or visitation rights is entitled to join himself or herself to the proceeding (id., rule 5.24(c)(2)), and by the very fact of participation in the proceeding may consent to the court’s exercise of jurisdiction (see, e.g., In re Marriage of Torres (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 1367, 1380).
Here, however, after receiving notice of Bianka’s action, Jorge has made no claim to custody or visitation rights, much less participated in the proceeding in any manner that could be interpreted as consent to the court’s jurisdiction. Thus, as the superior court itself observed, there is no clear basis on which the court could exercise personal jurisdiction over Jorge. It is therefore not feasible to join him. And if it is not feasible to join Jorge as a party because he is beyond the court’s personal jurisdiction, then the proper course is not simply to order that Jorge be joined anyway. Rather, as a general rule, when it is not feasible for an interested person to be joined, the law instructs the court to consider whether, “in equity and good conscience,” the suit may proceed in the person’s absence. (
Although the superior court in this case did not cite Code of Civil Procedure section 389 or expressly address any of the section 389 factors, the court’s reasoning suggests it believed that Jorge is not only a “necessary” but an “indispensable” party—to use the usual section 389 terminology—because Bianka’s action unavoidably requires adjudication of Jorge’s parental rights and responsibilities. The premise is faulty. Bianka asks for three things in this proceeding: (1) the establishment of a legal mother-child relationship with Gladys; (2) an award of sole legal and physical custody to Gladys; and (3) findings relevant to SIJ status, including findings concerning the prospect of reunification with Jorge. Certainly Jorge’s participation is not essential for the court to determine the existence of a mother-child relationship between Bianka and Gladys. And although Jorge is certainly entitled to be heard on the remaining two matters if he chooses, he is not indispensable to their resolution.
To begin with, Jorge is not necessary—much less indispensable—to the resolution of Bianka’s request that sole custody be awarded to Gladys. Such an award would impose no obligation on Jorge, nor is Jorge’s participation otherwise needed for full consideration of whether relief should be granted. Determinations about the custody of children are to be made based on a determination of the child’s best interests. (
The superior court’s primary concern was that awarding sole custody to Gladys would effectively terminate any parental rights Jorge might wish to assert, and therefore should not be done in Jorge’s absence. But Jorge was given an opportunity to assert those rights in response to the notice of the pendency of the proceeding, and he did not do so. Had he asserted an interest in custody or visitation of Bianka, he would have been entitled to participate in the proceeding as a party. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.24(e)(1)(A).) But when a nonresident parent chooses not to assert parental rights or otherwise participate in the proceeding, there is no bar to adjudicating the rights of those parties who are present. It is by now established that a court may award sole custody to one parent even if the other parent (alleged or otherwise) is outside the court’s personal jurisdiction and does not participate as a party, provided the absent parent receives notice of the proceeding and an opportunity to be heard. (See In re Marriage of Leonard (1981) 122 Cal.App.3d 443, 459.) Were it otherwise, the nonresident parent would have an effective veto over the adjudication of parental custody rights in the minor’s best interests. (See id. at pp. 457–458.) And to the extent the courts below were concerned that the award of sole legal and physical custody to Gladys would effectively terminate any parental rights that Jorge might later wish to claim, the law is to the contrary. (See In re Marriage of Brown & Yana (2006) 37 Cal.4th 947, 958 [“an award of sole legal and sole physical custody of a child to one parent does not serve to ‘terminate’ the other’s parental rights or due process interest in parenting“]; see also
We turn, then, to the matter of the SIJ findings. Consistent with the federal statute and section 155 of the Code of Civil Procedure, Bianka asked the superior court to find that (1) she is in the court-ordered custody of Gladys; (2) she cannot reunite with her alleged father, Jorge, due to his abandonment; and (3) it is not in her best interest to return to Honduras. (See
First, the courts below appeared to believe that Bianka, by seeking findings relevant to SIJ status, is also seeking the equivalent of a parentage determination under the UPA concerning Jorge. Bianka, the Court of Appeal reasoned, “has placed Jorge’s paternity squarely at issue by requesting an order containing a factual finding that her father abandoned her.” If, as the courts appeared to believe, Bianka were seeking to establish a father-child relationship with Jorge under the UPA, then, as a matter of due process, she would be required to join her alleged father as a party to the action. (Gorham, supra, 186 Cal.App.4th at p. 1227.) But Bianka has not sought an order establishing a father-child relationship under the UPA, nor has she asked the court to grant Jorge parental rights or to order him to fulfill parental responsibilities. Bianka has instead simply asked the court to make a finding of fact: that reunification with her alleged father is not viable because of abandonment. Standing alone, that factual finding carries with it no necessary implications about Jorge’s parental rights or responsibilities beyond what his nonparticipation in the litigation has already demonstrated—that is, that he has not asserted an interest in, or right to, the physical or legal custody of Bianka. There is no due process bar to issuing such a finding in Jorge’s absence.
Second, the courts below cited the potential prejudice to Jorge if the finding is made in his absence. It is, the superior court noted, only a short step from finding that Jorge is Bianka’s father to concluding that Jorge must assume greater responsibility for her support. The court also expressed concern about the finding of abandonment, emphasizing that Jorge should be given an adequate opportunity to rebut the allegations. Bianka argues these concerns are overstated: She has not sought child support in this case, nor is it clear that it would be feasible for her to seek child support from Jorge, who is beyond the court’s jurisdiction. Any decision issued in Jorge’s absence could not bind him in any event. (See In re Wren (1957) 48 Cal.2d 159, 163 [“It is the general rule that a judgment may not be entered either for or against a person who is not a party to the proceeding, and any judgment which does so is void to that extent.“].) And while both the superior court and Court of Appeal were certainly correct to be concerned about potential prejudice to Jorge and his opportunity to respond to the allegations of abandonment, Jorge was notified of the allegations and had the opportunity to respond if he so chose; he did not, however, take any steps to participate in the pending proceeding.
Ultimately we need not decide here whether the courts’ concerns about prejudice would justify Jorge’s joinder as a necessary party if it were feasible to join him. We instead assume, without deciding, that Jorge is a necessary party as to the SIJ finding of abandonment. Because Jorge’s joinder is not feasible, the central question under the mandatory joinder statute is whether the court can, “in equity and good conscience,” make the finding in Jorge’s absence. Under
Although the superior court did not squarely address the last question, the answer is no: Bianka has no way to obtain a state court finding on the matters relevant to an application for SIJ status, as
In the end, considerations of “equity and good conscience” point in one direction. (
2.
The permissive joinder rule, rule 5.24(e)(2) of the California Rules of Court, on which the Court of Appeal relied as an alternative basis for upholding the superior court’s judgment, does not change the analysis. That rule states that a court may order that a person be joined to a proceeding if it finds that it would be appropriate to determine a particular issue in the proceeding and the court finds that the person “is either indispensable for the court to make an order about that issue or is necessary to the enforcement of any judgment rendered on that issue.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.24(e)(2).) All of this appears to presuppose that joinder is, in fact, feasible. The rule does not expressly address what should happen when joinder is infeasible because, for example, the person to be joined is beyond the court’s jurisdiction. In the absence of any more specific direction, the Rules of Court make clear that the ordinary rules relating to joinder of parties in civil cases apply. (Id., rule 5.24(a)(1).) Those rules, as noted, do not authorize a court to order joinder when it is not feasible to join the nonparty and when the nonparty is not indispensable to the action. In any event, even where rule 5.24(e)(2) does apply, it directs courts to consider, among other things, whether “the joinder of a party to determine the particular issue will complicate, delay, or otherwise interfere with the effective disposition of the proceeding.” (Id., rule 5.24(e)(2)(D).) Here, because Jorge is beyond the court’s jurisdiction, requiring his joinder would not only “complicate” proceedings, but would likely end them altogether.
The Court of Appeal did briefly acknowledge this problem, but suggested there may be a workaround: Jorge could stipulate to parentage, which would constitute a general appearance and establish the court’s personal jurisdiction over him. The court did not, however, consider what would happen if Jorge refused. For reasons already explained, the law does not condition Bianka’s ability to proceed with her suit on Jorge’s consent to submit to the jurisdiction of the superior court.
III.
We now turn to a second issue raised by the Court of Appeal’s decision. In its opinion, the Court of Appeal expressed concern that findings issued in the context of an uncontested custody proceeding would not be useful to Bianka’s SIJ application in any event. The court pointed to an excerpt from a 1998 House of Representatives conference report, a USCIS memorandum citing the same report, and a 2011 proposed rule (yet to be finalized), all of which contain language suggesting that USCIS will approve SIJ status only when the findings are issued in bona fide proceedings, meaning actions that are sought to obtain relief from abuse, neglect, or abandonment, and not primarily to obtain immigration relief. (See H.R.Rep. No. 105–405, 1st Sess., p. 130 (1997); USCIS, mem. on Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008: Special Immigrant Juvenile Status Provisions (Mar. 24, 2009), superseded by USCIS Policy Manual, vol. 6, pt. J, ch. 2, D.5. (May 23, 2018); 76 Fed. Reg. 54978, 54985 (Sept. 6, 2011).) The court suggested that any findings issued in this case are unlikely to meet this standard, reasoning that Bianka had not demonstrated a practical need to establish her mother’s sole custody and must therefore be primarily motivated by a desire to obtain SIJ findings.
Reading this passage as effectively a secondary basis for upholding the superior court’s denial of her requested order, Bianka urges us to make clear that a court cannot deny a child’s request for SIJ findings on the basis of its conclusion that the findings are the child’s central motivation in filing the action. As it happens, the Legislature has already supplied the clarification Bianka seeks. Shortly after the Court of Appeal issued its decision in this case, the Legislature in 2016 amended Code of Civil Procedure section 155 to make clear that a court must issue findings relevant to SIJ status, if factually supported, regardless of its assessment of the child’s perceived motivations in invoking the court’s jurisdiction: “The asserted, purported, or perceived motivation of the child seeking classification as a special immigrant juvenile shall not be admissible in making the findings under this section. The court shall not include nor reference the asserted, purported, or perceived motivation of the child seeking classification as a special immigrant juvenile in the court’s findings under this section.” (
Even setting aside this recent amendment to Code of Civil Procedure section 155, we would agree with Bianka that a conclusion that a proceeding is primarily motivated by a desire to secure SIJ findings is not a ground for declining to issue the findings. Certainly no such qualification has ever appeared in section 155; since its enactment, that provision has made clear that a superior court “shall” issue an order containing SIJ findings if there is evidence to support them. (
IV.
The judgment of the Court of Appeal is reversed.
KRUGER, J.
WE CONCUR:
CANTIL-SAKAUYE, C. J.
CHIN, J.
CORRIGAN, J.
LIU, J.
CUÉLLAR, J.
MCCONNELL, J.*
* Administrative Presiding Justice of the Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.
See last page for addresses and telephone numbers for counsel who argued in Supreme Court.
Name of Opinion Bianka M. v. Superior Court
Unpublished Opinion
Original Appeal
Original Proceeding
Review Granted XXX 245 Cal.App.4th 406
Rehearing Granted
Opinion No. S233757
Date Filed: August 16, 2018
Court: Superior
County: Los Angeles
Judge: Holly J. Fujie
Counsel:
Irell & Manella, Miller Barondess, Joshua C. Lee, Emily A. Sanchirico, David A. Schwarz, Stephen A. Rossi, Meiqiang Cui; Public Counsel, Judith London; Immigrant Defenders Law Center, University of Baltimore School of Law, Immigrant Rights Clinic and Nickole G. Miller for Petitioner.
Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Edward C. Dumont, State Solicitor General, Michael J. Mongan, Deputy State Solicitor General, and Samuel P. Siegel, Associate Deputy State Solicitor General, for Attorney General as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Petitioner.
Erin C. Smith, Jennafer D. Wagner, Nancy Lemon, Shuray Ghorishi, Catherine Ongiri, Anya Emerson; Mayer Brown, Donald M. Falk, Samantha Booth, Lilya Mitelman; and Jane K. Stoever for Family Violence Appellate Project, the University of California, Irvine School of Law Domestic Violence Clinic, Alternatives to Violence, the California Women’s Law Center, Domestic Violence Legal Empowerment and Appeals Project, Professor Wendy M. Seiden, the Legal Aid Society of Orange County and Community Legal
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, Julian W. Poon, Eric A. Westlund, Nathanial P. Johnson, Victor Lee, Lali Madduri, Jennifer Rho, Sarah G. Reisman and Daniel M. Bruggebrew for the Immigrant Legal Resource Center, the Los Angeles Center for Law and Justice and the
O’Melveny & Myers, Matthew W. Close, David A. Lash, Marion M. Read, Kelly Volkar and Katie Gosewehr for Mental Health Organizations as Amici Curiae on behalf of Petitioner.
Ribet & Silver and Claudia Ribet for the Harriett Buhai Center for Family Law and the Association of Certified Family Law Specialists as Amici Curiae on behalf of Petitioner.
Counsel:
Horvitz & Levy, Barry R. Levy, Mark A. Kressel and Allison W. Meredith for Senator Kevin de Leon, President Pro Tempore of the California State Senate, Anthony Rendon, Speaker of the California State Assembly, Senator Toni Atkins, Speaker Emeritus of the California State Assembly, Senator Ben Hueso, Chair of the Latino Legislative Caucus and Senator Ricardo Lara, former
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Daniel Grunfeld, David Sean Cox, Nicolette L. Young, Lauren S. Schwartz and Thomas M. Peterson for Legal Services for Children, Immigration Center for Women and Children, Law Foundation of Silicon Valley and Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area as Amici Curiae on behalf of Petitioner.
No
No appearance for Real Party in Interest.
Barnes & Thornburg, L. Rachel Lerman and Joseph Wahl as Amici Curiae, upon the request of the Supreme Court.
Counsel who argued in Supreme Court (not intended for publication with opinion):
Joshua C. Lee
930 Riverside Parkway, Suite 10
West Sacramento, CA 95605
(949) 371-9733
Michael J. Mongan
Deputy State
455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000
San Francisco, CA 94102-7004
(415) 703-2548
L. Rachel Lerman
Barnes & Thornburg
2029 Century Park East, Suite 300
Los Angeles, CA 90067-2904
(310) 284-3880