Está en la página 1de 50
 
 
NO. C071887
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
 
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
SUSAN C. FERRIS
,
 Appellant,
v.
DAVID M. FERRIS
,
 Respondent.
Appeal From the Sacramento Superior Court Case No. 98FL05615 Hon. Matthew Gary, Judge Presiding  ________________________________________
APPELLANT’S OPENING BRIEF
 ________________________________________ JAMES BROSNAHAN* (SBN 34555)WILLIAM KENNEDY (SBN 61701)KEVIN A. CALIA (SBN 227406)STEPHEN GOLDBERG (SBN 173499)DEVON EDWARDS (SBN 264833)LEGAL SERVICES OF MORRISON & FOERSTER LLPNORTHERN CALIFORNIA 425 Market Street 512 12th StreetSan Francisco, CA 94105-2482Sacramento, CA 95814 Tel: 415.268.7000 Tel: 916.551.2150Fax: 415.268.7522 Fax: 916.551.2195JBrosnahan@mofo.com bkennedy@lsnc.net 
 Attorneys for Appellant
SUSAN C. FERRIS
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS
 
Page
i INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................ 1
 
STATEMENT OF FACTS ........................................................................... 1
 
A.
 
Susan Is Disabled and Her Disability Hampers Her Focus and Emotional Stability in Stressful Situations ........... 1
 
B.
 
Susan and M Shared a Close Relationship ............................. 2
 
C.
 
Susan and M had Serious Concerns About David’s Behavior ................................................................................. 3
 
D.
 
The Court Deprived Susan of Custody of M in Hearings Where Susan Was Unrepresented ........................... 3
 
E.
 
The Trial Court Accused Susan of Assisting in M’s Disappearance and Deprived Susan of Her Parental Rights Without Appointing Counsel for Susan ...................... 5
 
F.
 
The Court Allowed David to Send M to an Out-of-State Lock-Down Facility ...................................................... 7
 
G.
 
The Court Orders Susan to Pay Attorney’s Fees for Filing the Motion to Prevent David from Sending M Out of State ............................................................................. 9
 
H.
 
Susan Had Difficulty Pursuing and Arguing Her Case Without the Assistance of Counsel ...................................... 11
 
STANDARD OF REVIEW ........................................................................ 12
 
STATEMENT OF APPEALABILITY ...................................................... 13
 
LEGAL ARGUMENT ............................................................................... 14
 
I.
 
THE STATE DEPRIVED SUSAN OF ALL CUSTODY AND CONTACT WITH HER DAUGHTER WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW .............................................................. 15
 
A.
 
Susan’s Private Interests in the Right to the Care, Custody, and Contact with Her Child Are “Compelling” and “Fundamental” ....................................... 18
 
B.
 
The State Suspended Susan’s Parental Rights in Proceedings Which Had a High Risk of Error ..................... 20
 
1.
 
Child Custody Proceedings Have a High Risk of Error When One Party is Unrepresented .............. 20
 
2.
 
The Proceedings at Issue Were Complex, Emotionally Charged, and Carried a High Risk of Error ...................................................................... 23
 
3.
 
An Attorney Would Have More Effectively Prepared, Investigated, and Argued Susan’s Case ........................................................................... 24
 
C.
 
Susan Has a Protected Dignity Interest in Having Counsel Appointed to Adequately Present Her Case ........... 27
 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS
 (continued)
Page
 ii D.
 
The State’s Interests Also Weigh in Favor of Appointing Counsel for Susan ............................................. 29
 
II.
 
FEDERAL AND STATE LAWS PROTECTING PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES GUARANTEE SUSAN THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL IN THIS CASE ...................................................... 31
 
A.
 
Susan Has a Qualifying Mental Disability ........................... 32
 
B.
 
Susan Made a Reasonable Request for Accommodation ................................................................... 34
 
C.
 
The Court Was Obligated to Provide Auxiliary Aids and Services .......................................................................... 34
 
D.
 
Susan Was Excluded From Meaningfully Participating in Her Hearing as Result of Her Disability .......................... 35
 
III.
 
THE TRIAL COURT’S $2,500 SANCTION WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION ............................................................. 36
 
A.
 
Failure to Consider Whether a $2,500 Sanction Would Impose an Undue Burden Was an Abuse of Discretion ....... 36
 
B.
 
Imposing a Sanction Which Would Impose an Undue Burden Was an Abuse of Discretion .................................... 37
 
C.
 
The Trial Court Had No Reasonable Justification to Sanction Susan ..................................................................... 38
 
CONCLUSION .......................................................................................... 40
 

Recompense su curiosidad

Todo lo que desea leer.
En cualquier momento. En cualquier lugar. Cualquier dispositivo.
Sin compromisos. Cancele cuando quiera.
576648e32a3d8b82ca71961b7a986505