A.F. v. Jeffrey F.

San Diego, California family law lawyers represented wife seeking a domestic violence restraining order.

Father and A.F.'s mother, Andrea F. (Mother) married in 2008. They separated when A.F. was three years old. Less than a year later, Father pleaded guilty to one count of misdemeanor domestic violence against Mother and subsequently completed 52 weeks of counseling. The parents finalized all reserved issues related to their divorce in 2015 and agreed to share legal custody, with A.F. primarily residing with Mother and visiting Father on weekends, holidays, and vacations.



In April 2021, when A.F. was 11 years old, she applied for a DVRO through Mother, who had been appointed her guardian ad litem (GAL). The court entered a temporary restraining order pending trial, which resulted in a no contact order remaining in place for nearly two years.



This is A.F.'s third appeal in this matter. Early in the proceedings, Father objected to Mother's appointment as GAL and to Edward Castro's representation of A.F., arguing Castro had a conflict of interest because he previously had represented Mother in her marital dissolution from Father. (A.F. v. Jeffrey F. (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 737, 742.) A different judge removed Mother as GAL and granted Father's request to disqualify Castro. (Ibid.) A.F. appealed the order disqualifying her attorney, and we reversed. (Ibid.)



While that appeal was pending, another family court judge, who was presiding over the parents' dissolution case, anticipated changes to the custody and visitation arrangement following resolution of the domestic violence matter and, therefore, appointed a "minor's counsel" to represent A.F.'s best interests in that court. (A.F. v. Jeffrey F. (2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 671, 676 (A.F. II).) Meanwhile, A.F. retained a new attorney, Aaron Smith, in the domestic violence matter. (Ibid.)



A judge subsequently reviewed and rejected the fee agreement between A.F. and Smith, determined A.F. was not competent to retain counsel independently, and found that Smith did not meet the requirements detailed by the California Rules of Court, rule 5.242 to serve as a "minor's counsel." (A.F. II, supra, 90 Cal.App.5th at p. 676.) That court therefore removed Smith as A.F.'s attorney, appointed a "minor's counsel" in the domestic violence case, and prohibited Smith from replacing the attorney the court had appointed as a "minor's counsel." (Ibid.)



A.F. appealed on multiple grounds. (A.F. II, supra, 90 Cal.App.5th at pp. 676-677.) We affirmed the order voiding the agreement between A.F. and Smith and removing Smith as her attorney; reversed the order appointing a "minor's counsel," finding it improper in a domestic violence matter; and reversed the order prohibiting Smith from serving as A.F.'s attorney in the future. (Id. at p. 677.)...



* * *



A.F. v. Jeffrey F., D082485 (Cal. App. Sep 26, 2024)

Affirmed