Fox v. Trindade
Filed 5/12/06 Fox v. Trindade CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Shasta)
DEBRA FOX et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. TAMERA C. TRINDADE, Defendant and Respondent. | C049900 (Super. Ct. No. 151551) |
Plaintiffs Debra and Robert Fox appeal from the summary judgment entered in favor of defendant Tamera Trindade for legal malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of contract. The Foxes retained Trindade to represent them in dependency proceedings for their infant grandson, A. D., who had been removed from his mother's care, adjudged a dependent child of the court, and temporarily placed in the home of his maternal great grandparents, who lived in Redding, where he also had regular and frequent contact with his maternal great aunt and uncle.
The Foxes, who lived in the Bay Area, did not want temporary custody. They wanted visitation however, so they retained Trindade to seek visitation, standing, and possibly custody or adoption. After the six-month review hearing when the juvenile court found permanent placement with the maternal great aunt and uncle was appropriate because A. D. had developed a strong bond with them, the Foxes advised Trindade they were not going to contest the court's decision and terminated her services. They subsequently brought the present action on the ground that, but for Trindade's alleged malpractice, they would have had standing in the dependency and placement proceedings, would have been granted preferential consideration in obtaining custody of A. D., and would have received custody or greater visitation rights.
On appeal, the Foxes contend (1) the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to consider their opposing memorandum of points and authorities and (2) the judgment must be reversed because Trindade failed to submit facts establishing that the Foxes could not prove causation and failed to support her motion with an expert declaration to prove causation.
We find no error and shall affirm the judgment.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND[1]
A. In the Matter of A. D.
A. D. was born in Redding in March 2002 to Tina K. (Tina) and Jason D. (Jason). Immediately after the birth, hospital staff observed Tina exhibiting bizarre behavior and interacting minimally with A. D. They also were aware she had been prescribed anti-psychotic medication. After Tina left the hospital, Shasta County Child Protective Service (CPS) workers provided Tina and A. D. with family maintenance services. However, Tina continued to decompensate and was unable to provide regular care for A. D., so, on July 25, 2002, CPS workers removed him from her care. At that time, Jason was incarcerated in the county jail for violating parole.[2]
On August 2, 2002, the juvenile court adjudged A. D. a dependent child of the court and ordered that he be detained. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 300, 319.)[3] The court ordered that he be temporarily placed in the home of his maternal great grandparents (hereafter great grandparents), where he also had daily contact with his maternal great aunt and uncle (hereafter the L.'s).[4]
The Foxes are Jason's mother and step-father and A. D.'s paternal grandparents. When A. D. was born, the Foxes lived in Cupertino in the Bay Area, although Debra Fox (Debra) regularly visited him while he was living with Tina. After A. D. was removed from Tina's care and placed with his great grandparents, Debra had difficulty gaining visitation and thought she was getting â€
