Ramirez Fonua v. City of Hayward
- Richard Seeborg
- 3:21-cv-03644
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Ramirez Fonua v. City of Hayward, Judge Seeborg requested briefing before deciding whether to replace a minor child’s guardian ad litem.
B.H.R., the minor child whose guardian ad litem may be changed; Kendra Garcia and Cristina Ramirez Fonua are directly involved in the requested substitution.
What happened
Ramirez Fonua v. City of Hayward concerns a request to replace B.H.R.’s guardian ad litem, the person appointed to protect a minor’s interests in litigation. The plaintiffs asked to replace B.H.R.’s grandmother, Cristina Ramirez Fonua, with B.H.R.’s mother, Kendra Garcia.
The plaintiffs said Garcia is B.H.R.’s current legal guardian and has no conflicting interests. But in an earlier request, they had said child-protection officials removed B.H.R. from Garcia’s custody in 2020 and that they could not contact Garcia in 2021. The current request did not explain those circumstances or why Garcia would be suitable despite them.
Judge Richard Seeborg did not decide the replacement request. He ordered the plaintiffs to provide supplemental briefing by November 3, 2023, addressing the removal, their inability to locate Garcia, and Garcia’s suitability. Defendants were invited, but not required, to file their own briefing.
The detailed version
- Ramirez Fonua v. City of Hayward · No. 3:21-cv-03644
- Richard Seeborg
- Oct. 23, 2023
Background
The plaintiffs sought to substitute Kendra Garcia as guardian ad litem for B.H.R., replacing B.H.R.’s current guardian ad litem and grandmother, Cristina Ramirez Fonua. A guardian ad litem is a person appointed to represent and protect a minor’s interests in a lawsuit. The plaintiffs stated that Garcia is B.H.R.’s current legal guardian and has no conflicting interests with B.H.R.
The court noted that, in the plaintiffs’ earlier motion seeking Fonua’s appointment, the plaintiffs had represented that child-protection services had conducted a proceeding to remove B.H.R. from Garcia’s custody in early 2020 and that they had been unable to contact Garcia. The current motion did not explain how the alleged removal or the earlier inability to locate Garcia affected whether Garcia would be a suitable guardian ad litem.
Court’s Analysis
The court cited Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(c), which requires district courts to safeguard the interests of minor litigants. The court also explained that it must ensure that a guardian ad litem will represent the minor’s best interests. A parent may not control or influence a minor child’s litigation when the parent has an actual or potential conflict of interest with the child.
Ruling
The court ordered the plaintiffs to provide supplemental briefing, if appropriate under seal, by November 3, 2023. The briefing must address: (1) whether child-protection services removed B.H.R. from Garcia’s custody in 2020 and, if so, why; (2) the circumstances surrounding the plaintiffs’ inability to locate Garcia in 2021; and (3) why Garcia should be appointed guardian ad litem if B.H.R. was removed from her custody. Defendants were invited, but not required, to file briefing by the same date on whether Garcia would be suitable. The opinion did not decide whether Garcia would replace Fonua.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.