Harris v. County of San Diego

District Court, S.D. California · 3:18-cv-00924 · 2019-11-04 · Unknown

Proceeding: district
Area: civil
Panel: Barry T. Moskowitz (author)

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt own-v1, 2026-10-14T00:03Z · confidence high

Plaintiff Florence Harris petitioned the court to be appointed as guardian ad litem for her minor children, JQ.H and JZ.H, in a lawsuit against the County of San Diego and others. The court denied the petition, finding a conflict of interest due to the children's removal from Harris's custody, and ordered Harris to propose three alternative candidates.

What the court decided	The model
Denial of Plaintiff Florence Harris's Petition for Appointment of Guardian Ad Litem “Accordingly, the Court DENIES Harris’s petition to be appointed as guardian ad litem for JQ.H and JZ.H.”	agree with court The court correctly applied the legal standard that a parent is not automatically entitled to serve as guardian ad litem if there is a conflict of interest. The order recites that the children were removed from Harris's custody, which the court interprets as a judicial determination that she was not acting in their best interests. This creates a logical conflict between the mother's interests (likely seeking to vindicate her actions or regain custody) and the children's interests in the litigation against the entities that removed them. Therefore, the denial follows from the law and the facts recited in the order.
Order requiring Plaintiff to submit names of three alternative individuals to serve as guardian ad litem “ORDERS Harris to submit the names of three alternative individuals to serve as guardian ad litem by November 25, 2019.”	agree with court This is a procedural directive to ensure the minor plaintiffs have representation, consistent with the court's duty to protect unrepresented minors under Rule 17(c)(2).

What the court decided

The model

Denial of Plaintiff Florence Harris's Petition for Appointment of Guardian Ad Litem

“Accordingly, the Court DENIES Harris’s petition to be appointed as guardian ad litem for JQ.H and JZ.H.”

agree with court
The court correctly applied the legal standard that a parent is not automatically entitled to serve as guardian ad litem if there is a conflict of interest. The order recites that the children were removed from Harris's custody, which the court interprets as a judicial determination that she was not acting in their best interests. This creates a logical conflict between the mother's interests (likely seeking to vindicate her actions or regain custody) and the children's interests in the litigation against the entities that removed them. Therefore, the denial follows from the law and the facts recited in the order.

Order requiring Plaintiff to submit names of three alternative individuals to serve as guardian ad litem

“ORDERS Harris to submit the names of three alternative individuals to serve as guardian ad litem by November 25, 2019.”

agree with court
This is a procedural directive to ensure the minor plaintiffs have representation, consistent with the court's duty to protect unrepresented minors under Rule 17(c)(2).

The order itself: sound — The order is sound. It correctly identifies the relevant federal and state legal standards for appointing a guardian ad litem for a minor. It applies the 'divergent interests' test from California law and supports the finding of a conflict of interest with the specific fact that the children were removed from the petitioner's custody. The reliance on *Fong Sik Leung* and *Williams* is appropriate for the proposition that parents are not automatically entitled to the role. The conclusion that the petitioner is not appropriate follows logically from the recited facts and legal standards.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 FLORENCE HARRIS, ET AL., Case No.: 3:18-cv-00924-BTM- AHG 12 Plaintiffs, 13 v. ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF FLORENCE HARRIS’S 14 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, ET PETITION FOR APPOINTMENT AL., 15 OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM Defendants. 16 [ECF NO. 24] 17 18 Before the Court is Plaintiff Florence Harris’s (“Harris”) Petition for 19 Appointment of Guardian Ad Litem (ECF No. 24 (“Petition”)). For the reasons set 20 forth below, the Court DENIES Harris’s petition to be appointed as guardian ad 21 litem for Plaintiffs JQ.H and JZ.H. 22 I. BACKGROUND 23 Plaintiffs filed suit against the County of San Diego (“County”), San Diego 24 Health and Human Services Agency, Polinsky Children’s Center Auxiliary, Rady 25 Children’s Hospital San Diego, Dr. Wendy Wright, and Natasha Hall. (ECF No. 29 26 (“SAC”).) Harris is the mother of JQ.H and JZ.H, who were born in or around 27 October 2002. (Id. at ¶¶ 3–5.) This lawsuit arises from events in May 2011, when 28 it was reported that “a bruise on Plaintiff JQ.H’s hip was inflicted by his mother.” 1 (Id. at 19.) A medical examination was performed on JQ.H. (Id. at ¶ 20.) Several 2 hearings were held in state court. (Id. at ¶¶ 20–21.) JQ.H and JZ.H were 3 subsequently “removed from the care, custody, and control of their Mother.” (Id. 4 at ¶ 17.) Harris petitions the Court to appoint her as the guardian ad litem for JQ.H 5 and JZ.H. (Petition.) The County opposes. (ECF No. 30 (“County’s Opp.”).) 6 II. LEGAL STANDARD 7 Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[a] minor . . . who does not have 8 a duly appointed representative may sue by a next friend or by a guardian ad litem.” 9 Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c)(2). “The court must appoint a guardian ad litem — or issue 10 another appropriate order — to protect a minor or incompetent person who is 11 unrepresented in an action.” Id. The law of the state of domicile determines 12 capacity to bring suit. Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(b). Here, California law governs JQ.H’s 13 and JZ.H’s ability to sue. The age of majority is eighteen in California. Cal. Fam. 14 Code § 6502. JQ.H and JZ.H are both under eighteen years of age and are thus 15 minors under California law. (SAC., ¶¶ 4–5.) Minors may bring suit in California 16 “in the same manner as an adult, except that a guardian must conduct the action 17 or proceedings.” Id. § 6601. 18 III. DISCUSSION 19 In determining who to appoint as guardian ad litem, “the court shall consider 20 whether the minor and the guardian have divergent interests.” Cal. Civ. P. § 21 372(b)(1). A parent does not have the absolute right to be the guardian ad litem 22 of her minor child. Fong Sik Leung v. Dulles, 226 F.2d 74, 82 (9th Cir. 1955). 23 California courts have instructed against appointing the parent when there exists 24 “an actual or potential conflict of interest” between the parent and child. Williams 25 v. Super. Ct., 147 Cal. App. 4th 36, 50 (2007). The Court must appoint a guardian 26 who will “best protect the child’s interests.” Id. 27 The Court finds that Harris is not an appropriate guardian ad litem for 28 Plaintiffs JQ.H and JZ.H. Harris states that a court removed JQ.H and JZ.H from 1 ||her custody, (SAC., 7] 21-22), which indicates a judicial determination that Harris 2 || was not acting in her children’s best interests. Tate v. Cty. Of Kern, 2014 WL 3 ||584525, at *2 (E.D. Cal. 2014). Plaintiff does not allege that she regained custody 4 || of JQ.H and JZ.H. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Harris’s petition to be appointed 5 ||as guardian ad litem for JQ.H and JZ.H. 6 IV. CONCLUSION 7 The Court DENIES Harris’s Petition to be appointed as guardian ad litem for 8 || JQ.H and JZ.H (ECF No. 24) and ORDERS Harris to submit the names of three 9 || alternative individuals to serve as guardian ad litem by November 25, 2019. She 10 shall list the individuals in order of preference and explain why each is qualified. 11 ||ITIS SO ORDERED. 12 || Dated: November 4, 2019 13 a Tid Meith rane 44 Hono ble Barry Ted Moskgwitz United States District Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cites, in this corpus

Williams v. Superior Court D048962 · 2007-01-26