T.G. v. A.A. CA3

Filed 8/2/24 T.G. v. A.A. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----

T.G., C098765

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 22FL04199)

v.

A.A.,

Defendant and Appellant.

This case involves a parentage action between appellant A.A. (mother) and respondent T.G. (father). Mother retained her stepmother, M.A. (counsel), to represent her. On its own motion, the trial court disqualified counsel after concluding that she was a witness to interactions between mother and father. We conclude that the court gave insufficient weight to mother’s informed consent and her choice of counsel. We reverse and remand the matter for reconsideration. BACKGROUND Mother and father were in a relationship that began in 2014 and ended in April 2022. They are the parents of two minor children. Mother and father agreed to share parenting responsibilities, but the parenting schedule became a source of conflict between them. Mother stated that father would harass her with phone calls and text messages; she eventually asked to confine their communications to email.

1

In September 2022, father filed a petition to determine the parental relationship of the two children. One month later, mother requested a domestic violence restraining order, asserting a pattern of abuse and harassment by father. Among other things, she stated that father had verbally abused her since 2014 and that his behavior escalated after she began dating someone in May 2022. Father yelled at her in front of the children and repeatedly threatened her boyfriend. Mother recounted multiple incidents when father threatened her, including one incident when father came home drunk in July 2022. In another, father surprised mother outside of their child’s school, blocked her in with his car, and yelled at her. He picked up the children, even though it was not his scheduled day, and told mother she would have to meet him and sign over the pink slip to a car. When mother met him, he yelled at her before she left with the children. The trial court issued a temporary restraining order pending a hearing but ultimately denied the request for a domestic violence restraining order. At the outset of the case, counsel informed the trial court that she is married to mother’s father, a relationship that the court denoted on the record as “Maternal Grandmother to the Child.” At a February 28, 2023, hearing, the court asked father about his relationship and interactions with counsel and whether he objected to counsel’s representation of mother. Initially, father said he had “no issue” with it; but he later indicated that he was not comfortable negotiating with counsel and requested a continuance to retain representation. The court continued the proceedings. The court also said: “[B]ased on the statements made by [c]ounsel[,] it was not clear whether [c]ounsel was testifying as to incidents within her personal knowledge or providing her client’s offer of proof.” On its own motion, the court gave mother 45 days to find alternate counsel but allowed counsel to file a brief explaining why she should not be disqualified. In a declaration responding to the trial court’s request, counsel declared that she was the step-grandmother of the children and had “no legal rights or relationship with them.” She had not represented any of the other parties in the litigation, had no personal