Justia Family Law Opinion Summaries

David Weingarten and Krystal Mamer, who were never married, agreed to conceive a child via in vitro fertilization (IVF) using Weingarten’s sperm and a third party’s egg. They agreed to share the IVF costs, which totaled $55,635. Approximately one month after the child was born, Mamer filed a petition to determine parental relationship under the Uniform Parentage Act (UPA). Weingarten responded and later requested an order directing Mamer to reimburse him for half of the IVF costs. Mamer opposed, arguing that the statute did not authorize a court to order a mother to pay a father for any pregnancy expenses.The family court held a hearing and denied Weingarten’s reimbursement request, ruling it had no authority under Family Code section 7637 to order reimbursement of expenses incurred before the parentage action was filed. Weingarten appealed the order, and the family court subsequently entered a judgment declaring Mamer and Weingarten to be the parents of the child.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court held that Family Code section 7637 does authorize a court to direct a parent to pay reasonable expenses of the mother’s pregnancy, including IVF costs, even if those expenses were incurred before the parentage action was filed. The court found that the family court erred in its interpretation of the statute and that the statute does not limit the court’s authority to order reimbursement to expenses incurred after the parentage action is filed.The appellate court reversed the order denying Weingarten’s reimbursement request and remanded the matter to the family court to exercise its discretion in determining whether to direct Mamer to pay a portion of the IVF costs. The judgment was affirmed in all other respects, and Weingarten was entitled to recover costs on appeal. View "Mamer v. Weingarten" on Justia Law

Susan Diamond appealed an order denying her request to set aside the judgment in her marital dissolution proceeding with Troy Diamond. Susan argued that the family court erred in denying her motion to vacate the judgment based on duress and mental incapacity during the dissolution proceeding. She claimed she was unable to participate in the proceedings due to severe mental health issues and duress caused by Troy's alleged abusive behavior.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County initially granted Susan's attorney's request to be relieved as counsel due to Susan's lack of communication and cooperation. Susan did not appear in court or respond to discovery requests, leading to an uncontested trial in May 2015. The court awarded Troy sole custody of their daughter Sarah, child support, and significant financial awards. Susan's first request to set aside the judgment based on mistake was denied, and her appeal was dismissed as untimely.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Seven, reviewed the case. The court found that Susan did not meet her burden to show she was mentally incapacitated or under duress during the dissolution proceedings. The court concluded that Susan's mental health issues did not rise to the level of mental incapacity as defined by relevant statutes, and there was no evidence that Troy's behavior constituted duress. The court also rejected Susan's argument that the judgment should be set aside as inequitable, noting that section 2123 prohibits setting aside a judgment solely based on inequity.The court affirmed the family court's order, holding that Susan did not establish grounds for relief under Family Code section 2122. View "Marriage of Diamond" on Justia Law

A minor child, Baby Girl R., was abandoned by her mother, S.R., shortly after birth. S.R. gave birth in a homeless encampment and was using methamphetamines daily. Baby Girl R. tested positive for the drug and exhibited withdrawal symptoms. S.R. was placed on an involuntary psychiatric hold due to paranoia, delusions, and aggression. After being discharged, S.R. left Baby Girl R. at the hospital and returned to the encampment. The Department of Family and Children’s Services initiated dependency proceedings, and Baby Girl R. was placed in protective custody. Despite diligent efforts, the Department could not locate S.R.The juvenile court placed Baby Girl R. in foster care and ordered reunification services for S.R., despite her unknown whereabouts. The court found that S.R.’s location was unknown despite reasonable efforts to locate her. Baby Girl R. appealed, arguing that the court should have bypassed reunification services under Welfare and Institutions Code section 361.5, subdivision (b)(1). While the appeal was pending, the juvenile court terminated reunification services for S.R. at the six-month review hearing and placed Baby Girl R. with her maternal grandparents.The California Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court determined that the appeal was moot due to the termination of reunification services but exercised discretion to address the merits. The court concluded that section 361.5, subdivision (b)(1) does not mandate bypassing reunification services when a parent’s whereabouts are unknown despite a diligent search. The juvenile court has discretion to grant or deny reunification services in such cases. The appellate court found no error in the juvenile court’s decision to order reunification services for S.R. and affirmed the disposition order. View "In re Baby Girl R." on Justia Law

In September 2017, Attorney Karolyn Kovtun held a meeting with Jennifer Shenefield and her client Mark Shenefield, despite a criminal protective order prohibiting Mark from contacting Jennifer. During the meeting, Mark and Kovtun verbally and emotionally abused Jennifer, and Kovtun threatened to remove their daughter from Jennifer’s custody if she did not sign a custody agreement. Jennifer signed the agreement under duress and contacted the police. Kovtun continued to represent Mark, who was later convicted of violating the protective order. Kovtun then sued Jennifer for recording the meeting without consent, prompting Jennifer to file a cross-complaint against Kovtun.The Superior Court of San Diego County denied Kovtun’s two anti-SLAPP motions and sustained her demurrer to two of Jennifer’s six causes of action. After a bench trial, the court found Kovtun liable for negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, intentional misrepresentation, and negligent misrepresentation, awarding Jennifer $50,000 in damages. Mark did not appear at trial, and the court entered judgment against him, awarding Jennifer $250,000 in damages.The Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, State of California, reviewed the case. Kovtun argued that Jennifer’s claims were barred by the statute of limitations under Code of Civil Procedure section 340.6 and the litigation privilege under Civil Code section 47, subdivision (b). The court concluded that Kovtun waived the statute of limitations defense by failing to timely and properly plead it. Additionally, the court determined that the litigation privilege did not apply to Kovtun’s communications. The judgment against Kovtun was affirmed. View "Shenefield v. Kovtun" on Justia Law

Michael Auer Wolf filed a request for a vocational evaluation of Patricia Mercado in a parentage action, which the Superior Court of Orange County granted. Wolf's request aimed to assess Mercado's ability to obtain employment and her earning capacity for determining child support. Mercado opposed the request, arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction to order a vocational evaluation as it was not authorized by any statute. She filed an amended petition for writ of mandate, prohibition, or other appropriate relief.The Superior Court of Orange County initially granted Wolf's request and later his motion to compel Mercado to undergo the vocational evaluation. Mercado appealed, arguing that the court's orders were void due to lack of statutory authority and that they violated her constitutional and discovery rights. The court maintained that child support was at issue and that it could order a vocational evaluation based on public policy and statutory provisions, including Evidence Code section 730.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the case. The court found that Wolf did not establish entitlement to a vocational evaluation under any relevant statutory authority, including sections 3558, 4331, and 4058 of the Family Code. The court emphasized that section 4058 requires a preliminary showing that a vocational evaluation would be in the best interests of the children, which Wolf failed to provide. The court also noted that Evidence Code section 730 did not support the vocational evaluation order as it pertains to neutral experts appointed by the court.The Court of Appeal granted Mercado's petition, ordering the Superior Court to vacate its orders requiring Mercado to undergo a vocational evaluation and to enter a new order denying Wolf's request. The stay order was dissolved, and Mercado was awarded her costs incurred in the proceeding. View "Mercado v. Superior Court" on Justia Law

Michael Auer Wolf filed a request for a vocational evaluation of Patricia Mercado in a parentage action. The Superior Court of Orange County granted Wolf's request and later compelled Mercado to undergo the evaluation. Mercado filed an amended petition for writ of mandate, prohibition, or other appropriate relief, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction to order the evaluation as it was not authorized by any statute.The Superior Court of Orange County initially granted Wolf's request for a vocational evaluation and later his motion to compel Mercado to undergo the evaluation. Mercado opposed the request, arguing it was improper under the relevant statutes and that child support issues were being handled by the Department of Child Support Services (DCSS). The court maintained that child support was at issue and that it had the authority to order the evaluation.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the case. The court found that Wolf did not establish entitlement to a vocational evaluation under any relevant statutory authority, including sections 3558, 4331, and 4058 of the Family Code. The court noted that section 3558 does not authorize vocational evaluations, section 4331 applies only to marital dissolution or legal separation cases, and section 4058 requires a preliminary showing that a vocational evaluation would be in the best interests of the children, which Wolf did not provide. The court also found that Evidence Code section 730 did not support the order as it pertains to neutral experts appointed by the court, not retained experts.The Court of Appeal granted Mercado's petition, ordering the Superior Court to vacate its orders requiring Mercado to undergo a vocational evaluation and to deny Wolf's request for the evaluation. The stay order was dissolved, and Mercado was awarded her costs incurred in the proceeding. View "Mercado v. Superior Court" on Justia Law

The appellant, C.C., who had previously consented to terminate his parental rights to a child conceived through his sperm donation, petitioned the family court to establish himself as a presumed father and a third parent under California Family Code sections 7611(d) and 7612(c). He argued that his post-adoption conduct entitled him to parenting rights and that the 2013 amendments to the Family Code provided a path for him to establish a relationship with the child. C.C. claimed that there was no evidence he relinquished his right to enforce a legal parenting relationship and that the respondents, L.B. and R.B., were estopped from relying on his consent to the adoption.The family court granted the respondents' motion to quash C.C.'s amended petition, finding that the donor agreement allowed visitation privileges but not parental rights, and that C.C.'s voluntary consent to the termination of his parental rights was final and irrevocable. The court determined that C.C. lacked standing to assert parentage due to the finality of the adoption order. C.C. appealed, arguing that the trial court's order was contrary to custody and parenting law.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Six, reviewed the case and affirmed the trial court's decision. The appellate court held that section 8617 of the Family Code precludes C.C. from establishing parentage under any theory, as the termination of his parental rights was final and irrevocable. The court also found that equitable estoppel did not apply because the donor agreement explicitly stated that C.C. would have no paternal rights. Additionally, the court ruled that C.C. lacked standing to initiate an action for visitation as a nonparent under the Family Code. The judgment was affirmed, and respondents were awarded their costs on appeal. View "C.C. v. L.B." on Justia Law

K.M., the mother of minor Z.H., appealed a judgment that terminated her parental rights after the child's father, I.H., and paternal grandmother, C.L., filed a petition under Family Code section 7822. The petition alleged that K.M. had abandoned Z.H. by leaving him in the care of I.H. and C.L. without support or communication for over a year. The trial court found that K.M. had abandoned Z.H. and terminated her parental rights.The Los Angeles County Superior Court consolidated the case with a related custody case and stayed proceedings in the latter. During the trial, evidence showed that K.M. had not visited Z.H. since December 2017 and had not provided financial support since January 2020. The court found that K.M. had abandoned her parental role and focused more on her struggles than on Z.H.'s best interests.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court affirmed the judgment terminating K.M.'s parental rights, finding no error or abuse of discretion by the trial court. The appellate court noted that K.M. failed to show that the trial court was required to consider any legal impediment to the proposed adoption when terminating her parental rights.However, the appellate court identified a clerical error in the judgment regarding the termination of I.H.'s parental rights. The trial court had intended for I.H. to retain his parental rights. The appellate court remanded the case with instructions to correct the judgment to reflect that I.H. retains his parental rights. View "In re Z.H." on Justia Law

The case involves S.G., the mother of four children, aged eleven, nine, seven, and five, who were removed from her custody due to ongoing domestic violence by their father. S.G. appealed a December 20, 2023 order denying her motion to appoint a psychological expert to perform a bonding study under Evidence Code section 730. This request was made before an 18-month review hearing while she was still receiving reunification services. The juvenile court denied the motion, partly on the ground that it was improper to appoint an expert to aid S.G. in her defense and possibly because the request was deemed unripe during ongoing reunification services.The juvenile court initially declared the three older children dependents on February 27, 2020, due to domestic violence, allowing them to remain with S.G. with family maintenance services. On July 19, 2022, the youngest child was also declared a dependent. On September 29, 2022, all four children were removed from S.G.'s custody and placed in foster care. The court sustained a supplemental petition alleging continued contact between the parents and further domestic violence. Reunification services were ordered for S.G. but bypassed for the father. At the six-month and twelve-month review hearings, S.G.'s services were extended.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Two, reviewed the case. The court held that a parent may request, and the court must consider, the appointment of a psychological expert to aid the parent in dependency proceedings. The court found that the juvenile court erred in denying S.G.'s motion on the grounds that it was improper to aid her defense and possibly because it was premature. The appellate court vacated the order as to the two older children and remanded the matter for a new hearing, while dismissing the appeals concerning the two younger children as moot. View "In re P.S." on Justia Law

A four-year-old child, Noah C., was repeatedly removed from and returned to his abusive parents' custody by the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS). Tragically, Noah died in July 2019 due to abuse by his parents. His great-grandmother, Evangelina Hernandez, acting personally and on behalf of Noah's estate and his siblings, sued the County of Los Angeles and Hathaway-Sycamores Child and Family Services for negligence. The case at issue concerns the second cause of action for negligence against the County, alleging that DCFS failed to notify Hernandez about a removal warrant for Noah that was obtained but not executed.The trial court overruled the County's demurrer to the negligence claim, holding that the County had a mandatory duty under Welfare and Institutions Code section 361.3 to notify Hernandez about the removal warrant. The County then filed a petition for writ of mandate to overturn this ruling. The Court of Appeal issued an alternative writ directing the trial court to either vacate its order and sustain the demurrer or show cause why a peremptory writ should not issue. The trial court declined to vacate its order.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, reviewed the case and held that section 361.3 does not impose a mandatory duty on the County to notify a relative about an application for a protective custody warrant or a court order granting such a warrant before the minor's removal from parental custody. The court also concluded that other provisions cited by Hernandez, including the California Department of Social Services Manual of Policies and Procedures, Civil Code section 1714, and the special relationship doctrine, do not establish such a duty. Consequently, the court granted the petition in part, vacated the trial court's order overruling the demurrer, and directed the trial court to enter a new order sustaining the demurrer to the second cause of action without leave to amend. View "County of Los Angeles v. Superior Ct." on Justia Law