The Fox Firm recently won a reversal in the California Court of Appeal in a case raising a constitutional question that, as far as the parties or the appellate court could find, no published California opinion had ever decided.
I will not name the parties. The basic shape of the case is this. A young father lost his wife to sudden illness when their child was less than a year old. His estranged in-laws filed a petition for grandparent visitation under Family Code section 3102. The father opposed the petition. Two separate child welfare investigations had already concluded that the father was caring properly for his son. The first child welfare case had been dismissed at the agency’s request. The second had returned an “unfounded” finding.
The family court declared the father unfit anyway and granted grandparent visitation over his objection.
The constitutional problem was straightforward. The United States Supreme Court held in Troxel v. Granville (2000) that fit parents are presumed to act in their children’s best interests. Courts cannot override a fit parent’s decisions about who spends time with the parent’s child without giving the parent’s judgment meaningful deference. California Courts of Appeal have applied Troxel to section 3102 for two decades.
The novel question in our case was whether a family court could find a parent “unfit” under Troxel in a section 3102 visitation proceeding — and, if so, what role the determinations of the child welfare system should play. Neither the family court nor opposing counsel could identify a published California opinion answering either question. The Court of Appeal confirmed in its opinion that the appellate court was likewise unaware of any prior published opinion finding a parent “unfit” under Troxel in a section 3102 proceeding.
The Court of Appeal reversed and held three things.
Family courts must presume parental fitness in section 3102 proceedings. A grandparent seeking visitation over a fit parent’s objection must overcome the presumption by clear and convincing evidence.
When the child welfare system has investigated allegations against a parent and found the allegations unfounded or adequately resolved, a family court cannot lightly reach a contrary fitness finding based on the same facts. California’s dependency system has the procedural protections designed for fitness adjudications; the family court system does not.
A family court has no authority to substitute its own judgment for a fit parent’s. The Constitution requires deference to the parent’s view, not a free-floating best-interests inquiry by the court.
The Court of Appeal reversed and remanded for a new hearing under the correct standard.
The decision matters for parents in California facing grandparent visitation petitions. The decision matters for anyone in California who has had a trial court override their constitutional rights and needs to know an appellate court can correct the error. The decision also matters for attorneys who try cases below and need an appellate specialist who can take a trial loss and turn it into a reversal.
My firm handles civil appeals like this one — and other appeals across California from adverse trial court rulings on constitutional, statutory, and procedural grounds. If you have an adverse ruling and need to consider an appeal, or if you are an attorney with a client facing one, I would welcome the conversation.
I am reachable at melissa@melissafoxlaw.com or 949-683-8855.
— Melissa
The Fox Firm represents clients throughout California. Learn more at melissafoxlaw.com
You must be logged in to post a comment.