A.H. v. Sacramento County Dept. Child, Family and Adult Services

E.D. California

A.H. v. Sacramento County Dept. Child, Family and Adult Services

DecidedJuly 28, 2021

Docket2:21-cv-00690

StatusUnknown

This text of A.H. v. Sacramento County Dept. Child, Family and Adult Services (A.H. v. Sacramento County Dept. Child, Family and Adult Services) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

A.H. v. Sacramento County Dept. Child, Family and Adult Services, (E.D. Cal. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 A.H., et al., No. 2:21-cv-00690-KJM-JDP 12 Plaintiffs, ORDER 13 Vv. Sacramento County Dept. Child, Family and 15 Adult Services, et al., 16 Defendants. 17 Cynthia Martin is the mother of the minor plaintiffs A-H., EH. and C.G. Petition □ 1, 18 | ECF No. 4-3. Plaintiffs’ action brought under 42 U.S. § 1983 stems from defendants’ removal of 19 | the minors from Martin’s care for alleged danger to the minors’ physical health and emotional 20 | damage as well. Compl. 435, ECF No. 1. Plaintiffs argue the allegations against Martin were 21 | false and there was no reason for the children to be removed from her care. Jd. Martin moves to 22 | be appointed as guardian ad litem for the minors for the purpose of litigating this action. See 23 | generally Petition. “In general, a parent who is also a party to the lawsuit is presumed to be a 24 | suitable guardian ad litem, and so the court often appoints the parent as guardian ad litem upon 25 | receipt of an ex parte application without exercising much discretion.” Brown v. Alexander, 2015 26 | WL 7350183, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 20, 2015). “When a parent has an actual or potential conflict 27 | of interest with his child, however, the parent has no right to control or influence the child’s 28 | litigation.” /d. (citing Williams v. Superior Court, 147 Cal. App. 4th 36, 50 (2007)).

1 2 The parties are set to appear for a Motion Hearing on defendant’s pending motion to 3 dismiss, ECF No. 7, on August 6, 2021. The parties should come prepared to provide additional 4 information to court regarding whether Martin is an appropriate guardian ad litem in light of the 5 underlying facts and the minors’ interests in this case, and in particular whether she has an actual 6 or potential conflict of interest. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 DATED: July 27, 2021.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 A.H., et al., No. 2:21-cv-00690-KJM-JDP 12 Plaintiffs, ORDER 13 Vv. Sacramento County Dept. Child, Family and 15 Adult Services, et al., 16 Defendants. 17 Cynthia Martin is the mother of the minor plaintiffs A-H., EH. and C.G. Petition □ 1, 18 | ECF No. 4-3. Plaintiffs’ action brought under 42 U.S. § 1983 stems from defendants’ removal of 19 | the minors from Martin’s care for alleged danger to the minors’ physical health and emotional 20 | damage as well. Compl. 435, ECF No. 1. Plaintiffs argue the allegations against Martin were 21 | false and there was no reason for the children to be removed from her care. Jd. Martin moves to 22 | be appointed as guardian ad litem for the minors for the purpose of litigating this action. See 23 | generally Petition. “In general, a parent who is also a party to the lawsuit is presumed to be a 24 | suitable guardian ad litem, and so the court often appoints the parent as guardian ad litem upon 25 | receipt of an ex parte application without exercising much discretion.” Brown v. Alexander, 2015 26 | WL 7350183, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 20, 2015). “When a parent has an actual or potential conflict 27 | of interest with his child, however, the parent has no right to control or influence the child’s 28 | litigation.” /d. (citing Williams v. Superior Court, 147 Cal. App. 4th 36, 50 (2007)).

1 2 The parties are set to appear for a Motion Hearing on defendant’s pending motion to 3 dismiss, ECF No. 7, on August 6, 2021. The parties should come prepared to provide additional 4 information to court regarding whether Martin is an appropriate guardian ad litem in light of the 5 underlying facts and the minors’ interests in this case, and in particular whether she has an actual 6 or potential conflict of interest. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 DATED: July 27, 2021.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

A.H. v. Sacramento County Dept. Child, Family and Adult Services, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ah-v-sacramento-county-dept-child-family-and-adult-services-caed-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack