The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 A.H., et al., No. 2:21-cv-00690-KJM-JDP
12 Plaintiffs, ORDER
13 Vv.
Sacramento County Dept. Child, Family and
15 Adult Services, et al.,
16 Defendants.
17 Cynthia Martin is the mother of the minor plaintiffs A-H., EH. and C.G. Petition □ 1,
18 | ECF No. 4-3. Plaintiffs’ action brought under 42 U.S. § 1983 stems from defendants’ removal of
19 | the minors from Martin’s care for alleged danger to the minors’ physical health and emotional
20 | damage as well. Compl. 435, ECF No. 1. Plaintiffs argue the allegations against Martin were
21 | false and there was no reason for the children to be removed from her care. Jd. Martin moves to
22 | be appointed as guardian ad litem for the minors for the purpose of litigating this action. See
23 | generally Petition. “In general, a parent who is also a party to the lawsuit is presumed to be a
24 | suitable guardian ad litem, and so the court often appoints the parent as guardian ad litem upon
25 | receipt of an ex parte application without exercising much discretion.” Brown v. Alexander, 2015
26 | WL 7350183, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 20, 2015). “When a parent has an actual or potential conflict
27 | of interest with his child, however, the parent has no right to control or influence the child’s
28 | litigation.” /d. (citing Williams v. Superior Court, 147 Cal. App. 4th 36, 50 (2007)).
1
2 The parties are set to appear for a Motion Hearing on defendant’s pending motion to
3 dismiss, ECF No. 7, on August 6, 2021. The parties should come prepared to provide additional
4 information to court regarding whether Martin is an appropriate guardian ad litem in light of the
5 underlying facts and the minors’ interests in this case, and in particular whether she has an actual
6 or potential conflict of interest.
7 IT IS SO ORDERED.
8 DATED: July 27, 2021.