Cassidy Whitehurst and Isaac Whitehurst
Case No: 1418490
Hearing Date: Tue Apr 30, 2019 10:30

Nature of Proceedings: Motion Joinder

Charlene Fletcher’s request petition for joinder

Charlene Fletcher (“grandmother”) in pro per;

Marcus Morales for Petitioner (‘mother”)

Respondent (“father”) in pro per

Ruling: The Petition for Joinder is GRANTED; the fact that it will probably result in a request for grandparent visitation and/or opposition to mother’s anticipated move-away motion is premature; the Court must rule in chronological fashion; first things first; grandmother should not necessarily read anything into this decision as to any subsequent motions such as a request for visitation or what the Court might do if mother seeks to move to Texas; those issues will be resolved if and when they are raised. The Court reminds all participants that the real issue is what is in the best interests of the children.

Analysis/Background

Grandmother is the maternal grandparent of Charles Whitehurst, born 4/25/11, and Riley Whitehurst, born 6/29/07, who are the minor children in this case; grandmother testifies via her declaration that the minor children lived with grandmother for five years; mother and the children moved out of grandmother’s residence and mother has since refused to allow grandmother contact or visitation with the children. Grandmother seeks to have visitation rights with her grandchildren ordered by the Court; contends that it is appropriate for this Court to determine grandparent visitation because child custody and visitation are ordered through this case; contends that father will be necessary to assist in the enforcement of any judgment rendered.

The Court recognizes that this is only a motion for joinder; presumably the purpose, if granted, would be to allow grandmother to request grandparent visitation.

Mother’s Response

Filed 4/18; she testifies via her declaration that she does not consent to grandmother joining into this action; grandmother is the maternal grandmother; she has falsely called Child Protective Services on mother approximately five times.

Child Protective Services have found all of the false complaints unfounded and unsubstantiated; children, Charles and Riley, have no relationship with grandmother; they do not wish to see her or speak to her; grandmother has on multiple occasions said derogatory comments to the children about mother and her family; on multiple occasions, she has called mother a bad parent, yelled and cursed at mother in front of the children.

Mother testifies that grandmother has substance abuse issues in her past, which make her prone to large, dramatic mood swings; children do not wish to see her; it would not be in the children’s benefit or best interest to see her; asks that the Court deny her petition for joinder.

Mother’s attorney has submitted some points and authorities and points out that third party joinder is “permissive;” the Court has discretion to order the joinder if it would be “appropriate” to determine the particular issue; joinder would be “appropriate” to determine the particular issue in the proceeding, including whether the joinder would unduly delay the proceeding, confuse other issues or otherwise interfere with effective disposition of the action. CRC 5.24(e)(2); Schnabel v. Super. Ct. (1994) 30 Cal 758, 762-763; here, grandmother is seeking visitation with her grandchildren, whom she is estranged from; grandmother puts forth zero evidence which would indicate why joining into the action would be in the best interest of children; grandmother will only succeed in causing stress and anguish that she has caused on the children and mother; grandmother has not answered why she has called Child Protective Services on so many occasions, without cause, and why all of her calls were unsubstantiated.

Mother will be seeking to stop the Court-ordered supervised visits with father, who has not seen the children in over two years and seeking an order to move to Texas for her employment; grandmother joining as a party will result in a delay in mother’s request to move, which should be between parents only; the issues will become confused as to the move away and cancelling father’s unexercised visitation time; the joinder must be denied; it is only meant to harass mother who has decided to honor her children’s wishes and not visit with grandmother; grandmother’s history of making false allegations to Child Protective Services conclusively (sic) shows she is not in her right mind to be visiting with their children; will only cause mother more attorney fees, which she is struggling to afford.

Reply

None filed

Mediation

Reports on 4/25 that no agreement has been reached between the parties; this matter will need to be determined by a court hearing upon motion by either party.