Recently in Family Law Category

Denial of Proposition 8 Intervention Motion

In Perry v. Schwarzenegger, No. 10-16751, an appeal by the County of Imperial, its Board of Supervisors, and a Deputy Clerk for the County from the denial of their motion to intervene in the case concerning the constitutionality of California's Proposition 8, the court dismissed the appeal where none of the Imperial County movants demonstrated a "significant protectable interest" at stake in this action.

In an action challenging the constitutionality of Proposition 8, a California ballot initiative restricting the definition of marriage to the union of a man and a woman, denial of a prospective intervenor's application to intervene is affirmed where the existing parties would adequately represent its interests.

Read Perry v. Prop. 8 Official Proponents, No. 09-16959

Appellate Information

Argued and Submitted November 4, 2009

Filed November 19, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge McKeown

Counsel

For Appellant:

Mary E. McAlister and Mathew D. Staver, Liberty Counsel, Lynchburg, VA

For Appellees:

Matthew D. McGill and Theodore B. Olson, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Washington, DC

Charles J. Cooper and Howard C. Nielson, Cooper and Kirk, PLLC, Washington, DC

In an action by a child protection agency seeking contact information for the guardians or legal representatives of students in a special education class in which mistreatment of students was alleged, dismissal of the action is reversed where: 1) the district court erred in holding that probable cause under the Developmental Disabilities Act (DD Act) required some showing that abuse and neglect were ongoing or likely to recur; and 2) the Federal Educational Rights and Privacy Act did not override plaintiff's authority under the DD Act to demand guardian or representative contact information from the school district.

Read Disability Law Ctr. v. Anchorage Sch. Dist., No. 08-35057

Appellate Information

Argued and Submitted February 11, 2009

Filed September 9, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Farris

Counsel

For Appellant:

Megan K. Allison, Disability Law Center of Alaska, Anchorage, AK

Holly Johanknecht, Disability Law Center of Alaska, Anchorage, AK

For Appellee:

Bradley D. Owens, Jermain, Dunnagan & Owens, Anchorage, AK

Cheryl Mandala, Jermain, Dunnagan & Owens, Anchorage, AK

In a petition for return of a child under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (Convention), the District Court's order extending comity to a Greek court's denial of Respondent's petition pursuant to the Convention is reversed where the Greek court misapplied the provisions of the Convention, relied on unreasonable factual findings, and contradicted the principles and objectives of the Convention.

Read Asvesta v. Petroutsas, No. 08-15365

Appellate Information

Argued Submitted July 14, 2008

Submitted August 28, 2009

Filed September 4, 2009

Judges

Opinion by Judge Paez

Counsel

For Petitioner:

Renee C. Day, Hoover & Bechtel, LLP, San Jose, CA

Kelly A. Powers, Miles & Stockbridge P.C., Towson, MD

For Respondent:

Carmenella Athena Roussos, Elk Grove, CA