In Re Sophia B.

California Court of Appeal Aug 25, 1988 No. D006711Published

Before: Wiener

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. On appeal from a final judgment, a party seeking to challenge the denial of a motion to disqualify opposing counsel must demonstrate that the denial resulted in prejudice and affected the outcome of the case.

Issues

What standard of review applies to a motion to disqualify counsel when raised for the first time on appeal from a final judgment?
Must a party demonstrate that the denial of a motion to disqualify counsel affected the outcome of the case to warrant reversal on appeal?

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“We therefore infer a rule that on appeal from a final judgment, an issue of attorney disqualification may not be raised unless it is accompanied by a showing that the erroneous granting or denying of a motion to disqualify affected the outcome”

203 Cal.App.3d 1436 (1988) 250 Cal. Rptr. 802 In re SOPHIA B., a Minor.

SAN DIEGO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, Petitioner and Respondent,

MARTHA G., Objector and Appellant.

Docket No. D006711. Court of Appeals of California, Fourth District, Division One.

August 25, 1988. [1437] COUNSEL

William K. Mueller, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Objector and Appellant.

[1438] Lloyd M. Harmon, Jr., County Counsel, and Arlene Prater, Deputy County Counsel, for Petitioner and Respondent.

Stephen J. Perrello, Jr., for Minor.

OPINION

WIENER, Acting P.J.

When Sophia Rachel B. was born on August 13, 1985, her mother Martha G. had been subject to an LPS conservatorship for the better part of seven years suffering from a mental disorder. The county's public guardian served as Martha's conservator. Approximately two months after Sophia's birth, she was made a dependent of the juvenile court pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (a) and placed with a friend of Martha's who hoped to adopt her. At that time, Martha was diagnosed as suffering from Bipolar Affective Disorder with "zero prognosis regarding any future hope of being able to care for and manage needs of an infant."

During the next year and a half, Martha alternated between staying in psychiatric hospitals and board-and-care facilities. Two attempts at independent living proved unsuccessful. In December 1986, the county's department of social services (DSS) petitioned to have Sophia declared free from her mother's custody and control pursuant to Civil Code section 232.

A guardian ad litem and an attorney were appointed to represent Martha in the section 232 proceeding. The county counsel represented the DSS. Before the hearing on the petition, the guardian moved to have county counsel disqualified on the ground that because the office represented both the DSS and the public guardian (Martha's conservator), a conflict of interest was present which precluded its further involvement in the case. The juvenile court denied the motion, finding that county counsel had never previously represented Martha and that there was no showing county counsel had ever received any confidential information about Martha in the course of its representation of the public guardian. Martha did not seek pretrial review of the order denying her motion. Thereafter, the court sustained the Civil Code section 232 petition and entered a judgment accordingly.

In Re Sophia B.

AI Brief

OPINION

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

DISCUSSION

NOTES

AI Brief