Preview
FILED
Superlor Court of Call
County of —
FEB 21 2018
WN
Jake Chatters
Executive OFUCE r & Cierk
By:B. BUT ig;
Députy
KR
DN
DOAN
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF PLACER
Oo OC
RE
JOSEPH E. MONTANEZ et al, Case No.: S-CV-0040742
KF
Plaintiffs;
NY
OE
ORDER ON EX PARTE APPLICATION
" FOR HEARINGON MOTIONS AND
BW
EE
THE FAMILY NETWORK, INC., ON OSC RE PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION
Defendants
RE
UN
RE
BD
RH
WAN
Plaintiffs and applicants Joseph E. Montanez and Jessenia Rivera-
BR
Hinojos, biological parents of minor M.R., filed an unlimited civil complaint
O
NR
seeking to rescind their relinquishments of M.R. for adoption due to
DO
defendants' (i) failure to comply with governing regulations, (ii) fraud, and
NN
FP
(iii) deprivation of plaintiffs' due process rights. The complaint also seeks a
NYN
NN
declaration that the relinquishments are void. Plaintiffs have not filed a
NY
KRW
proof of service of the summons or complaint as to any defendant.
NY
Plaintiffs apply for relief characterized as a request for an order
NY
DUN
shortening time for hearing on an "OSC re Preliminary Injunction for Stay"
NY
and to hear motions (i) to consolidate this action with a related, confidential
NY
AN
adoption proceeding; (ii) to assign the consolidated action for hearing in a
NY
wow
MN
family law department of the court; and (iii) for orders granting plaintiffs
visitation with M.R.
WN
The declaration of ex parte notice indicates only that at an unspecified
time yesterday and in conjunction with
KR
an ex parte application in Montanez
v. The Family Network, Inc., case no. S-CV-00040741, counsel for plaintiffs
DH
and defendants stipulated that plaintiffs would "obtain an order shortening
time in this case." Counsel's declaration in support of the proposed motion
ON
to consolidate includes an Exhibit A that suggests that plaintiffs notified
defendants at approximately 2:52 p.m. yesterday that plaintiffs would seek
Oo
an order shortening time for hearing the motions to consolidate, assign to a
OC
ER
family department, and "staying the adoption process except for
FY
Er
supervisory visits . . . and Indian Child Welfare Act matters," with a
NY
proposed hearing date of March 15, 2018.
W
OE
Despite characterizing the ex parte application as a request to shorten
BR
REE
time, plaintiffs lodged a proposed order to show cause "re preliminary
MN
injunction for stay", and filed declarations in support of the proposed
DW
RR
motions (not in support of shortening time for hearing on the proposed
WAN
motions). Plaintiffs have also lodged proposed motions to consolidate and
RR
for visitation orders.
O
Defendants did not file a response to the ex parte application or
DOD
DN
appear.
F&
N
The court notes that yesterday in the related proceeding, Montanez v.
NY
NY
The Family Network, Inc., case no. S-CV-00040741, the court declined to
NY
KRW
grant ex parte relief related to Family Network's determination of plaintiffs’
NY
requests to rescind relinquishments, and ordered the writ of mandate
MN
NY
petition to be heard March 27, 2018, 8:30 a.m., in Department 40. This
ADA
NY
action was not disclosed in todays' ex parte papers despite having a close
NY
MAN
relationship with this pending civil complaint.
NN
Oo
DISCUSION
Stay of adoption proceedings
WN
The request for an order shortening time to hear an order to show
Cause on a preliminary injunction to stay the adoption proceedings
KR
is, in
substance, an ex parte application to stay the adoption. Because a stay is
DH
appropriate and will be granted, the request to shorten time and the
application for an order to show cause are both denied as moot.
DAN
The court notes that plaintiffs are not parties to the adoption
proceeding and, pursuant to Family Code sections 9200, 7643, and other
OO
statutes and rules, are not entitled to access the adoption file or participate
OO
Er
in any adoption hearing without a court order for good cause shown. This
FY
Er
applies notwithstanding the parties may have already exchanged certain
WYN
EO
information about the case with petitioners. Adoption proceedings are
RE
subject to the strictest confidentiality. Accordingly, in this public unlimited
KR
civil case, the court will not disclose case information from the adoption file.
RHE
DH
Nevertheless, plaintiffs have shown good cause to stay the adoption
RB
until further proceedings in this action and the related writ action have
RH
WAN
occurred. Accordingly, the court stays the adoption proceeding under terms
FB
set forth in an order separately filed in that action and provided to the
UO
parties and attorneys in that action.
TD
NN
Consolidation
FY
The request for an order shortening time to hear a motion to
NY
KRWN
consolidate this public unlimited civil complaint with the confidential pending
NY
adoption case is denied. The ex parte request suggests no means by which
NY
the two cases—unrelated in pleading and procedural requirements and with
DUN
NN
conflicting rights to public access—could effectively be heard or tried in a
consolidated proceeding, notwithstanding any agreement of counsel. As
NY
DAN
noted above, plaintiffs are not parties to or entitled to access the adoption
NN
Oo
file, and are not entitled to participate in the adoption proceeding without
Be
court orders to the contrary. In these circumstances, an order shortening
NY
time is not appropriate. The motion itself is not yet before the court, and
W
court makes no ruling on any issues it may
BR
present if and when filed.
Visitation orders
DM
The request for an order shortening time to hear a motion to grant
visitation orders to plaintiffs is also denied. The ex parte application does
AN
not indicate how any child custody or visitation orders are or could be an
available remedy in this unlimited civil action.
Oo
Such orders generally may
be obtained only by an appropriate petition under the Family Code, Welfare
OO
and Institutions Code, Probate Code, or other applicable law. In these
Ff
ee
circumstances, an order shortening time is not appropriate. The motion
NB
ee
itself is not yet before the court, and court makes no ruling on any issues it
W
ee
may present if and when filed.
BR
Ee
Case management / status conference
WN
Upon the filing of this action, the clerk set a case management
WD
ee
conference June 11, 2018, pursuant to standard court scheduling practices.
NY
For good cause, the court, on its own motion, sets a case management /
WA
Re
status conference March 27, 8:30 a.m., in Department 40.
oO
BR
CO
RN
CONCLUSION
FY
RN
As set forth above, the ex parte application is granted in part and
KN
NY
denied in part.
DN
KRW
Although the court has denied requests to shorten time on plaintiffs'
NN
proposed motions, the court notes that they may be scheduled through the
OT
NY
clerk's office, including setting motions on March 27, 8:30 a.m., in
WD
NY NY
DAN
NY
Oo
BO
Department 40, if plaintiffs so desire.!
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DY
4 /f }
KRW
DATED: February 21, 2018 [Nah be 2
Hon. Charles D. Wachob
Judge of the Superior Court
OH
BD
AN
Oo
OO
ph
KF
Er
NY
KRW
OE
UN
RE
BD
RRB
WAN
BRB
BR
O
DO
NN
FF
NY
WN
NY
KR
NY
NY
DN
NY
This proceeding would typicallybe scheduled by the clerkfor motion hearings on Thursdays in
NYY
Department 32, ratherthan Tuesdays inDepartment 40, under the court's current scheduling practices.
N
However, because the related writ proceeding isto be heard in Department 40,the court determines that
Ma
NY
motions inthis matter should alsobe heard inDepartment 40.
wow
yO
Preview
FILED Superlor Court of Call County of — FEB 21 2018 WN Jake Chatters Executive OFUCE r & Cierk By:B. BUT ig; Députy KR DN DOAN SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF PLACER Oo OC RE JOSEPH E. MONTANEZ et al, Case No.: S-CV-0040742 KF Plaintiffs; NY OE ORDER ON EX PARTE APPLICATION " FOR HEARINGON MOTIONS AND BW EE THE FAMILY NETWORK, INC., ON OSC RE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION Defendants RE UN RE BD RH WAN Plaintiffs and applicants Joseph E. Montanez and Jessenia Rivera- BR Hinojos, biological parents of minor M.R., filed an unlimited civil complaint O NR seeking to rescind their relinquishments of M.R. for adoption due to DO defendants' (i) failure to comply with governing regulations, (ii) fraud, and NN FP (iii) deprivation of plaintiffs' due process rights. The complaint also seeks a NYN NN declaration that the relinquishments are void. Plaintiffs have not filed a NY KRW proof of service of the summons or complaint as to any defendant. NY Plaintiffs apply for relief characterized as a request for an order NY DUN shortening time for hearing on an "OSC re Preliminary Injunction for Stay" NY and to hear motions (i) to consolidate this action with a related, confidential NY AN adoption proceeding; (ii) to assign the consolidated action for hearing in a NY wow MN family law department of the court; and (iii) for orders granting plaintiffs visitation with M.R. WN The declaration of ex parte notice indicates only that at an unspecified time yesterday and in conjunction with KR an ex parte application in Montanez v. The Family Network, Inc., case no. S-CV-00040741, counsel for plaintiffs DH and defendants stipulated that plaintiffs would "obtain an order shortening time in this case." Counsel's declaration in support of the proposed motion ON to consolidate includes an Exhibit A that suggests that plaintiffs notified defendants at approximately 2:52 p.m. yesterday that plaintiffs would seek Oo an order shortening time for hearing the motions to consolidate, assign to a OC ER family department, and "staying the adoption process except for FY Er supervisory visits . . . and Indian Child Welfare Act matters," with a NY proposed hearing date of March 15, 2018. W OE Despite characterizing the ex parte application as a request to shorten BR REE time, plaintiffs lodged a proposed order to show cause "re preliminary MN injunction for stay", and filed declarations in support of the proposed DW RR motions (not in support of shortening time for hearing on the proposed WAN motions). Plaintiffs have also lodged proposed motions to consolidate and RR for visitation orders. O Defendants did not file a response to the ex parte application or DOD DN appear. F& N The court notes that yesterday in the related proceeding, Montanez v. NY NY The Family Network, Inc., case no. S-CV-00040741, the court declined to NY KRW grant ex parte relief related to Family Network's determination of plaintiffs’ NY requests to rescind relinquishments, and ordered the writ of mandate MN NY petition to be heard March 27, 2018, 8:30 a.m., in Department 40. This ADA NY action was not disclosed in todays' ex parte papers despite having a close NY MAN relationship with this pending civil complaint. NN Oo DISCUSION Stay of adoption proceedings WN The request for an order shortening time to hear an order to show Cause on a preliminary injunction to stay the adoption proceedings KR is, in substance, an ex parte application to stay the adoption. Because a stay is DH appropriate and will be granted, the request to shorten time and the application for an order to show cause are both denied as moot. DAN The court notes that plaintiffs are not parties to the adoption proceeding and, pursuant to Family Code sections 9200, 7643, and other OO statutes and rules, are not entitled to access the adoption file or participate OO Er in any adoption hearing without a court order for good cause shown. This FY Er applies notwithstanding the parties may have already exchanged certain WYN EO information about the case with petitioners. Adoption proceedings are RE subject to the strictest confidentiality. Accordingly, in this public unlimited KR civil case, the court will not disclose case information from the adoption file. RHE DH Nevertheless, plaintiffs have shown good cause to stay the adoption RB until further proceedings in this action and the related writ action have RH WAN occurred. Accordingly, the court stays the adoption proceeding under terms FB set forth in an order separately filed in that action and provided to the UO parties and attorneys in that action. TD NN Consolidation FY The request for an order shortening time to hear a motion to NY KRWN consolidate this public unlimited civil complaint with the confidential pending NY adoption case is denied. The ex parte request suggests no means by which NY the two cases—unrelated in pleading and procedural requirements and with DUN NN conflicting rights to public access—could effectively be heard or tried in a consolidated proceeding, notwithstanding any agreement of counsel. As NY DAN noted above, plaintiffs are not parties to or entitled to access the adoption NN Oo file, and are not entitled to participate in the adoption proceeding without Be court orders to the contrary. In these circumstances, an order shortening NY time is not appropriate. The motion itself is not yet before the court, and W court makes no ruling on any issues it may BR present if and when filed. Visitation orders DM The request for an order shortening time to hear a motion to grant visitation orders to plaintiffs is also denied. The ex parte application does AN not indicate how any child custody or visitation orders are or could be an available remedy in this unlimited civil action. Oo Such orders generally may be obtained only by an appropriate petition under the Family Code, Welfare OO and Institutions Code, Probate Code, or other applicable law. In these Ff ee circumstances, an order shortening time is not appropriate. The motion NB ee itself is not yet before the court, and court makes no ruling on any issues it W ee may present if and when filed. BR Ee Case management / status conference WN Upon the filing of this action, the clerk set a case management WD ee conference June 11, 2018, pursuant to standard court scheduling practices. NY For good cause, the court, on its own motion, sets a case management / WA Re status conference March 27, 8:30 a.m., in Department 40. oO BR CO RN CONCLUSION FY RN As set forth above, the ex parte application is granted in part and KN NY denied in part. DN KRW Although the court has denied requests to shorten time on plaintiffs' NN proposed motions, the court notes that they may be scheduled through the OT NY clerk's office, including setting motions on March 27, 8:30 a.m., in WD NY NY DAN NY Oo BO Department 40, if plaintiffs so desire.! IT IS SO ORDERED. DY 4 /f } KRW DATED: February 21, 2018 [Nah be 2 Hon. Charles D. Wachob Judge of the Superior Court OH BD AN Oo OO ph KF Er NY KRW OE UN RE BD RRB WAN BRB BR O DO NN FF NY WN NY KR NY NY DN NY This proceeding would typicallybe scheduled by the clerkfor motion hearings on Thursdays in NYY Department 32, ratherthan Tuesdays inDepartment 40, under the court's current scheduling practices. N However, because the related writ proceeding isto be heard in Department 40,the court determines that Ma NY motions inthis matter should alsobe heard inDepartment 40. wow yO