Monday, March 12, 2018
Page 1
Court of Appeal:
Noncustodial Parent With Home-Visitation Right Must Provide Her Address to Former Spouse
Order Does Not Breach Constitutional Right to Privacy—Premo
By a MetNews Staff Writer
The Sixth District Court of Appeal held Friday that a noncustodial parent who was granted supervised visitation rights in her home with her minor daughter does not have a constitutional privacy right to keep her address a secret from her former spouse.
Acting Presiding Justice Eugene M. Premo wrote the opinion, which was not certified for publication. It affirms a Santa Clara Superior Court order to Linda Yi-Tai Shao, mother of a girl referred to as “L,” provide her residence address to her ex-husband, Tsan-Kuen Wang, father of the child.
In seeking an invalidation of that order, Shao cited the First District Court of Appeal’s 2000 opinion in Planned Parenthood Golden Gate v. Superior Court. There, an order to Planned Parenthood to reveal home addresses of its staff members and volunteers was ordered stricken.
Haerle’s Opinion
Justice Paul R. Haerle of Div. Two wrote:
“[T]he discovery order…on nonparties’ residential privacy interests by compelling disclosure of residential addresses and telephone numbers. Courts have frequently recognized that individuals have a substantial interest in the privacy of their home.”
Haerle also declared that a trial court abuses its discretion “if it fails to undertake the required balancing of the privacy interests against the state interest in compelling disclosure.”
Case Differentiated
Differentiating that case, Premo said in Friday’s opinion:
The important fact in Planned Parenthood which makes the case inapplicable here, is that the order in Planned Parenthood was for the discovery of the residence addresses of nonparties. Not only is Shao a party in this case, she is L.’s mother, and participates in supervised visitation with L. at her residence. The court was under no obligation to balance Shao’s right to privacy with the state’s interest in seeking the information. Requiring Shao to provide her residence address to L.’s custodial parent did not violate Shao’s constitutional right to privacy.”
Premo went on to say:
“The fact that Shao participated in supervised visitation with L. at her residence was a legitimate reason for the court to order her to provide her address to Wang. As L.’s custodial parent, Wang has a right to know where his minor child is at all times, regardless of whether a supervisor is present for Shao’s visitation with L.”
A custody order grants Shao four hours per week of supervised visitation with the child. Supervision weas ordered based on the mother’s “severe and ongoing emotional and psychological abuse” of the girl.
Vexatious Litigant
Shao, an attorney, claimed that the order to her to disclose her address must be set aside because the judge who made it was biased against her. Although she is represented on apeal by counsel, in 2016 she filed pleadings in pro per, and Santa Clara Superior Court Judge Joshua Weinstein ordered them stricken, and yje filing fees returned, when he realized she has been declared a vexatious litigant.
The proper procedure would have been to stay proceedings provide a notice that Shao had 10 days within which to seek an order from the poresiding judge permitting the filings, Premo noted.
He went on to say, however:
“[A]dverse rulings or errors on the part of a judge do not demonstrate his or her partiality or bias….
“The fact that Judge Weinstein did not follow the proper procedure when he ordered that Shao’s pleadings be stricken and taken off-calendar does not show that he was biased against her, nor does it show that he intended to deny Shao access to the court.”Case is Marriage of Shao and Wang, H043851.
Copyright 2018, Metropolitan News Company