A.F. v. Jeffrey F.

This is the second case between the same parties after A.F. v. Jeffrey F. from 2022, post.  While the first case was pending on appeal, A.F. turned 12 and the trial court did not appoint a new guardian ad litem for her.  Instead, the court appointed a Minor’s Counsel for A.F. “in anticipation of changes to the custody and visitation arrangement that could result from the outcome” of A.F.’s DVRO request against Father.  The Court of Appeal reversed because appointing Minor’s Counsel “is improper in a DV matter where a minor seeks” a DVRO.

The Court also held: the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction to act in the DVRO matter while the first appeal was pending; the trial court did not err in voiding A.F.’s agreement with her independent counsel because she “lacked competency to select her attorney independently”; the court erred in prohibiting the attorney from being A.F.’s counsel since the attorney does not need to meet the Minor’s Counsel requirements; and the court erred (harmlessly) by not providing proper notice to A.F. before interviewing her.