[00:00:01] Speaker 02:
Our next case is Grant versus City of Long Beach.

[00:00:44] Speaker 02:
You can begin when you're ready.

[00:00:46] Speaker 03:
Good morning.

[00:00:47] Speaker 03:
May I please record Angela Swan on behalf of Larry Grant and his daughter, PC?

[00:00:54] Speaker 02:
Would you like to reserve any time for rebuttal?

[00:00:56] Speaker 03:
Yes, five minutes.

[00:00:58] Speaker 03:
OK, thank you.

[00:01:03] Speaker 03:
A parent's right to parent their child without the interference of the government is one of the fundamental rights in our country that we as parents enjoy.

[00:01:15] Speaker 03:
Mr. Grant was denied that right.

[00:01:19] Speaker 03:
His child was with him.

[00:01:21] Speaker 03:
There were no orders that his child could not be with him.

[00:01:25] Speaker 03:
The Long Beach Police Department had a policy that they implemented that night and during the day when Mr. Grant was with his daughter.

[00:01:36] Speaker 03:
Under the Monell claim, we must show that there is a connection

[00:01:46] Speaker 03:
between the conduct that shows some type of policy.

[00:01:52] Speaker 03:
We believe that we showed that to the district court.

[00:01:54] Speaker 03:
We showed that there was a policy that the Long Beach Police Department had.

[00:01:59] Speaker 03:
And that policy was that if you are a parent, if the other parent is asking for custody of the child back, if you're not able to show a DNA test or show a birth certificate, then your child can be removed from your custody.

[00:02:16] Speaker 02:
Okay, so let me just start out by asking a question that was the subject of our pre-argument order, which is that one of the problems that I see for this case is that many of the cases cited in your brief don't seem to stand for the propositions that you cite them for.

[00:02:34] Speaker 02:
So I'll mention Devereux versus Perez, Brooks versus City of Seattle, Heidrich versus Hunter.

[00:02:42] Speaker 02:
Wallace versus Spencer, Henderson versus Simi Valley, and then there were two cases cited in the brief that don't seem to exist at all, Smith versus Oakland, Jones versus Williams.

[00:02:58] Speaker 02:
You can maybe address those two cases that we could not locate.

[00:03:05] Speaker 02:
With respect to the rest of your case, I'm just wondering what the strongest cases are that you have an authority, because the ones that you've cited just don't, the facts don't line up with what you cited them for.

[00:03:17] Speaker 03:
The two cases that the court had indicated prior to the case today, one of them I will indicate that it was cited incorrectly.

[00:03:29] Speaker 03:
On the second case.

[00:03:31] Speaker 02:
OK.

[00:03:31] Speaker 02:
Well, which one was that that was cited incorrectly?

[00:03:33] Speaker 03:
That was the Williams versus Jones.

[00:03:36] Speaker 03:
OK.

[00:03:36] Speaker 03:
And what's the correct citation you want us to look at?

[00:03:40] Speaker 03:
The case just did not apply.

[00:03:42] Speaker 03:
So I would have to just not rely on that case.

[00:03:47] Speaker 03:
The other case was the United States versus William.

[00:03:50] Speaker 03:
That was a 731 F3D 1222 site.

[00:03:58] Speaker 03:
And that case would have to be distinguished from our case in that our client was not freely and voluntarily giving the police officer permission to come into the home.

[00:04:12] Speaker 03:
They came into the home.

[00:04:13] Speaker 03:
It was three or four police officers.

[00:04:15] Speaker 03:
They stayed there for an hour and 40 minutes.

[00:04:18] Speaker 03:
And they demanded that Mr. Grant come up with a DNA test or come up with a birth certificate

[00:04:28] Speaker 03:
Or at 10 o'clock at night, his child was going to be removed from his home.

[00:04:32] Speaker 03:
Of course, he was unable to come up with that on the officer's demand.

[00:04:38] Speaker 03:
And they forced his child to leave the home crying, upset.

[00:04:44] Speaker 03:
Mr. Grant was upset.

[00:04:46] Speaker 03:
His significant other was upset.

[00:04:48] Speaker 03:
This is clearly a violation of his constitutional rights.

[00:04:53] Speaker 02:
Speaking for myself, I know what you've alleged here.

[00:04:56] Speaker 02:
What I'm asking you is what cases that you have that actually support your case, because all the cases that I just mentioned, I don't find them to be in support.

[00:05:08] Speaker 02:
What are your strongest cases that actually support this matter?

[00:05:14] Speaker 03:
We have Foreman versus Davis.

[00:05:21] Speaker 03:
That's cited on page 30 of our brief.

[00:05:27] Speaker 03:
And that discusses the Monell claim.

[00:05:32] Speaker 03:
It talks about the Monell claim.

[00:05:50] Speaker 03:
We have, of course, the Monell versus Department of Social Services.

[00:05:54] Speaker 03:
That's a 436 US 658, a 1978 case.

[00:05:59] Speaker 03:
And that's the crust.

[00:06:00] Speaker 01:
I think that what Judge Thomas's questions are getting at are, because of the widespread fabrications and inaccuracies in the brief, should we find there to be a failure to present sufficient authorities to even appeal, to bring this appeal on behalf of plaintiff and to raise the claims that have been raised?

[00:06:20] Speaker 03:
I think it would be an injustice to the parent at this time.

[00:06:27] Speaker 03:
I think that it's well settled law that

[00:06:31] Speaker 03:
A police officer can't walk into the home of an individual, demand the birth certificate.

[00:06:37] Speaker 03:
And if we don't have it, then you need to haul the children out of the home.

[00:06:41] Speaker 03:
I think that it's just egregious.

[00:06:44] Speaker 03:
But I think it's just the fundamental basis of our Constitution.

[00:06:48] Speaker 01:
You're raising serious constitutional claims in this appeal.

[00:06:53] Speaker 01:
And you understand that you can't come into court on an appeal raising serious constitutional claims.

[00:07:01] Speaker 01:
and cite no authority in support of those claims, right?

[00:07:09] Speaker 01:
Of course, yes.

[00:07:14] Speaker 01:
So I'd like to understand what are the authorities that support the claims, because the briefs don't, your brief does not cite to authorities both that, cites to authorities that don't exist at all, and it cites to authorities that don't stand for the proposition that are argued in the brief.

[00:07:39] Speaker ?:
Okay.

[00:07:48] Speaker 03:
OK, there's Wilkins versus Oakland 350 F3D 949.

[00:07:57] Speaker 03:
That talks about it shocks the conscious.

[00:08:00] Speaker 03:
So that's the argument that we made that the appellee's conduct shocks the conscious.

[00:08:06] Speaker 03:
The fact that the officers came into the home, they took the child out, they should not be able to

[00:08:15] Speaker 03:
indicate that they're immune, that they have qualified immunity based on the fact that Wilkins said, if it's a conduct that shocks the conscious, then that's enough to make them responsible for their actions.

[00:08:29] Speaker 03:
So here we have officers that came in, and they, for an hour and 40 minutes, read the Father of the Riot Act to find the DNA test or else the child has to come with us.

[00:08:42] Speaker 03:
So I think that to any reasonable person that would have shocked the conscience, and those officers would have known that they were acting egregious, they were acting reckless, that's a case that would support the contention that these officers need to be held responsible and not be able to use the qualified immunity.

[00:09:08] Speaker 03:
Additionally, that

[00:09:09] Speaker 03:
The case of Porter versus Osborne, that's 546 F3D 1131.

[00:09:15] Speaker 03:
That indicates that the government's conduct has to be intentional, arbitrary, and again, shocks the conscience.

[00:09:23] Speaker 03:
Here, Sergeant Owens, other officers that went into the home that night and demanded that the child be turned over.

[00:09:34] Speaker 03:
Their behavior is consistent with what

[00:09:38] Speaker 03:
that court ruled you won't be able to hide behind the fact that you are, you won't be able to hide behind the facts without some sort of meaningful information showing that you're not arbitrary or you're not intentionally doing these actions.

[00:10:01] Speaker 01:
Would you agree that it's undisputed that Mr. Grant had no parental rights at the time of the removal?

[00:10:08] Speaker 03:
Every parent has parental rights.

[00:10:10] Speaker 03:
So there was no document that he did not have any parental rights.

[00:10:13] Speaker 03:
So the district court had nothing to say that he had no parental rights.

[00:10:17] Speaker 03:
Every parent has parental rights unless the court.

[00:10:20] Speaker 04:
But what was the evidence that he was the parent?

[00:10:23] Speaker 04:
I mean, he didn't have a birth certificate.

[00:10:25] Speaker 04:
He didn't have anything, a custody document.

[00:10:32] Speaker 04:
There's nothing in the record to show that he was the father.

[00:10:38] Speaker 03:
When the officers came to the house, they didn't dispute that he was the father.

[00:10:42] Speaker 03:
The uncontroverted evidence was that the mother had allowed the child to be with her father, Mr. Graham, for two weeks while she worked on house issues and had relationship issues.

[00:10:52] Speaker 04:
But then she went to get the child.

[00:10:55] Speaker 04:
And what in the record indicates that she didn't have a right to take her child?

[00:11:01] Speaker 03:
There was no court order.

[00:11:02] Speaker 03:
A parent cannot deprive another parent without any sort of court order.

[00:11:07] Speaker 04:
She had the birth certificate.

[00:11:10] Speaker 04:
Your client wasn't on the birth certificate.

[00:11:14] Speaker 04:
So what is the officer to do?

[00:11:17] Speaker 03:
The officer is only in the executive branch, so he's following the orders from a court.

[00:11:23] Speaker 03:
He's not able to come in and say, well, I'm going to turn the child over because it's a Friday and mom wants the child.

[00:11:29] Speaker 02:
But you have one parent with a birth certificate, another person telling officers that he's the parent, but with

[00:11:37] Speaker 02:
not a name on the birth certificate, no documentary evidence to demonstrate that.

[00:11:43] Speaker 02:
I mean, is your argument really that in those situations that officers are obligated to leave the child with the person claiming to be a parent but who has no documentary proof of that against the person that has the birth certificate?

[00:11:57] Speaker 02:
I mean, it's not logical.

[00:11:59] Speaker 03:
Just constitutionally wise, there's no requirement that a parent walks around with a birth certificate or a DNA test.

[00:12:08] Speaker 03:
The other parent would typically have a custody order from a court.

[00:12:12] Speaker 03:
They would give that to the police officers, the police being from the executive branch.

[00:12:17] Speaker 03:
They're reading the court order, and they're enforcing the court order.

[00:12:20] Speaker 03:
But they're not simply taking phone calls from a parent who says,

[00:12:25] Speaker 03:
Gee, it's my day or I don't want the child here.

[00:12:28] Speaker 03:
That's what our family courts are for.

[00:12:30] Speaker 03:
The officer has no rights to come into someone's home at 10 o'clock p.m.

[00:12:36] Speaker 03:
and say, give me the birth certificate right now.

[00:12:40] Speaker 03:
Many parents are not on the birth certificate for many reasons.

[00:12:43] Speaker 03:
There's no requirement that I be on a birth certificate in order to parent my child.

[00:12:49] Speaker 03:
discrepancy that this was a kidnapping or some form of emergency.

[00:12:52] Speaker 04:
But wouldn't you agree that if your parent and you call and you say, I want my child back, and the other person has nothing to show that they're the father or that they have custody of the child, then the officer then at that point is obligated to assist in handing over the child to the person

[00:13:16] Speaker 04:
who says this is my child.

[00:13:18] Speaker 04:
It's the same thing as everything else.

[00:13:21] Speaker 04:
You have proof that you're the rightful parent and custodian of that child, then you get to get the child until the person who's not on the birth certificate takes active steps to get a custody order or get his name on the birth certificate or establish his parental rights.

[00:13:40] Speaker 04:
So I don't agree with you that you get parental rights just because you're the parent.

[00:13:45] Speaker 04:
You have to be able to prove that you're the parent, and you have to be able to have something to show that you're the parent.

[00:13:51] Speaker 04:
And based on that, your whole claim fails because there's nothing that shows anybody acted in a wrongful manner or that there was an actual constitutional violation.

[00:14:07] Speaker 04:
What is the constitutional injury as required by Monell and required by?

[00:14:15] Speaker 03:
So under the 14th Amendment, a person has a right to parent their child and free from any government intrusion unless there's a due process here where that person can be challenged and come in and contest their child being removed from their custody.

[00:14:35] Speaker 03:
Here, this was a father.

[00:14:36] Speaker 03:
The child was not at any harm.

[00:14:38] Speaker 03:
The mother didn't say the child was kidnapped, or she didn't know who this man was.

[00:14:43] Speaker 03:
She just simply felt that it was enough time.

[00:14:46] Speaker 03:
It was time for the child to come back home.

[00:14:50] Speaker 03:
In those instances, a parent would go to court, and they would ask the court to cut off the visitation.

[00:14:55] Speaker 01:
Isn't this the same situation as our case

[00:14:58] Speaker 01:
Britton v. Hanson.

[00:15:01] Speaker 01:
So how do you distinguish that case to your procedural due process claims in this case?

[00:15:07] Speaker 03:
In that case, there was a court order.

[00:15:09] Speaker 03:
So there was a court order that the officers were attempting to enforce.

[00:15:13] Speaker 03:
Here, there is no court order.

[00:15:15] Speaker 03:
So both parents have equal footing when it comes to their child.

[00:15:19] Speaker 03:
Mother has no superior rights over father, father has no superior rights over mother, just as his father couldn't show up at mother's home.

[00:15:28] Speaker 01:
Yeah, the mother in this case had court-ordered visitation rights.

[00:15:31] Speaker 01:
Did your client have court-ordered visitation rights?

[00:15:34] Speaker 03:
There's no indication within the record that there were any court-ordered visitation rights.

[00:15:38] Speaker 01:
No, in fact, he didn't have any court-ordered visitation rights.

[00:15:41] Speaker 01:
He didn't have any documents even establishing that he was the parent of the child, right?

[00:15:47] Speaker 03:
So no parent had any court-ordered rights.

[00:15:50] Speaker 03:
So no parent had ever gone to court.

[00:15:53] Speaker 03:
So some parents don't go to court.

[00:15:55] Speaker 01:
So these were parents who never went to court.

[00:15:58] Speaker 01:
So you'd agree with me that your client did not have any documentation establishing any parental, that he was a parent or that he had any parental rights, correct?

[00:16:09] Speaker 03:
Just based on his constitutional rights.

[00:16:12] Speaker 03:
A yes or a no.

[00:16:13] Speaker 03:
He didn't have any, I don't know any court orders that he had, that either party had.

[00:16:19] Speaker 03:
Mother had no court orders.

[00:16:20] Speaker 03:
Father had no court orders.

[00:16:21] Speaker 02:
But if the question is, did he have any documentary evidence?

[00:16:24] Speaker 02:
She had a birth certificate.

[00:16:26] Speaker 02:
Her name's on it.

[00:16:27] Speaker 02:
There's no father's name on it.

[00:16:29] Speaker 02:
I'm looking at it.

[00:16:30] Speaker 02:
What did your client have?

[00:16:33] Speaker 03:
He had the fact that the mother had released the child to him.

[00:16:36] Speaker 03:
The mother had explained to the officers what the situation was.

[00:16:41] Speaker 03:
He didn't need any other type of rights in order to parent his child.

[00:16:46] Speaker 03:
There's no additional information that's required in order for him to remain the father of the child.

[00:16:54] Speaker 03:
He doesn't have to go to court before spending time with his child.

[00:17:00] Speaker 03:
And the officers indicated that he did, which was something that is just not the law.

[00:17:06] Speaker 03:
And this was something that they did not once, but two and three times throughout the same day where they went.

[00:17:11] Speaker 03:
They did a welfare check.

[00:17:13] Speaker 03:
Everything checked out great at 4 o'clock.

[00:17:15] Speaker 03:
They went back at close to midnight.

[00:17:18] Speaker 02:
Well, I think we understand the facts that you're alleging.

[00:17:22] Speaker 02:
I'll give you a minute on rebuttal.

[00:17:23] Speaker 02:
Thank you.

[00:17:36] Speaker 00:
Good morning, Your Honors.

[00:17:37] Speaker 00:
May it please the court?

[00:17:38] Speaker 00:
My name is Matthew Peters, appearing for appellees City of Long Beach and Gabriel Rodriguez Lopez.

[00:17:48] Speaker 00:
As Your Honors know, the officers encountered a very sensitive family civil dispute on the night in question, one which this court has not directly addressed.

[00:18:00] Speaker 00:
Appellees submit that the Britain case is most analogous and most instructive in this case.

[00:18:07] Speaker 00:
As opposing counsel pointed out, in Britain, there was an actual court visitation order.

[00:18:14] Speaker 00:
And unlike this case, there was no visitation or court order as to custody.

[00:18:21] Speaker 00:
But what appellants seem to overlook is the fact that it's undisputed that Mr. Grant and Ms.

[00:18:27] Speaker 00:
Cephas agreed that Mr. Grant was to have a visitation period with PC for two weeks.

[00:18:38] Speaker 00:
Mr. Grant was afforded 16 days with his daughter.

[00:18:41] Speaker 00:
The fact that he didn't like the end of that visitation period does not amount to a deprivation of any protected liberty interest.

[00:18:54] Speaker 00:
The officers did the best they could with the information at hand, and we submit acted objectively reasonable under the circumstances.

[00:19:07] Speaker 00:
We had one parent.

[00:19:08] Speaker 00:
who was undisputed, had primary physical custody of.

[00:19:12] Speaker 00:
In fact, Mr. Grant had only visited with his daughter on approximately 10 occasions during the course of her lifetime on the night of the incident.

[00:19:23] Speaker 00:
Ms.

[00:19:23] Speaker 00:
Cephas was able to show the officers of her certificate, vaccination records, school records from her elementary school in Georgia.

[00:19:32] Speaker 00:
And as your honor's pointed out, Mr. Grant was on a

[00:19:36] Speaker 00:
was unable to even establish parentage at this point.

[00:19:40] Speaker 01:
What do you make of California Family Code sections 3010 and 7611 that say, even absent a custody order, a parent who receives the child into their home and openly holds out the child as their natural child is entitled to joint custody?

[00:19:59] Speaker 00:
Your Honor, I would have to become more familiar with those family code sections.

[00:20:04] Speaker 00:
I recognize that it is established that parents have equal rights to their children, absent some order indicating otherwise.

[00:20:14] Speaker 00:
But what we have here is a dispute when none of those orders are present.

[00:20:19] Speaker 00:
And the information available to the officers at the scene was that one parent was able to establish that she was the biological mother of this child.

[00:20:28] Speaker 00:
and had school records and vaccination records to reflect such.

[00:20:33] Speaker 00:
We also have a text message string, which has been authenticated by Mr. Grant himself, basically agreeing to watch his daughter for two weeks.

[00:20:46] Speaker 00:
And then we have the information available to the officers at the scene.

[00:20:49] Speaker 00:
And there we submit an objectively reasonable outcome to return the daughter

[00:20:57] Speaker 00:
to the parent who was able to establish some parentage over the child and some record of living with the child.

[00:21:08] Speaker 00:
And so we submit that even if an erroneous legal conclusion was reached, either the family code or otherwise, it was not clearly established at the time of the events that such conduct was a violation of the constitutional rights.

[00:21:25] Speaker 00:
At a minimum, Mr. Grant,

[00:21:27] Speaker 00:
Was deprived of a couple of days of visitation at most And we submit that this does not rise to the level of a substantive due process violation Your honors i'm willing to address any other issues or questions the bench may have Otherwise, i'll see the rest of my time Okay, we don't have any further questions.

[00:21:52] Speaker 02:
Thank you

[00:22:13] Speaker 03:
I just want to reiterate that I think it's clear just based on what counsel said that it was uncontroverted that my client was the father of the child.

[00:22:26] Speaker 03:
No one was disputing whether he was the father or not.

[00:22:30] Speaker 03:
The officers had a policy to come into his home.

[00:22:34] Speaker 03:
If you don't have a DNA test and a birth certificate, we're going to remove your child out of the home.

[00:22:39] Speaker 03:
That's simply anarchy.

[00:22:42] Speaker 03:
We would need no family court for that.

[00:22:43] Speaker 03:
The police officers would simply come in and make a decision right there on the spot.

[00:22:49] Speaker 03:
It doesn't matter if it was 15 minutes, two days, or two years.

[00:22:54] Speaker 03:
What the police officers did was egregious.

[00:22:58] Speaker 03:
My client has a fundamental right to parent his child.

[00:23:00] Speaker 03:
There were no orders in place saying you're restrained from your child, only mother can have the child, or only mother can dictate when you see the child.

[00:23:11] Speaker 03:
My client had every right to it.

[00:23:14] Speaker 03:
Within the record, it states that my client and I were going to court on that Monday.

[00:23:18] Speaker 03:
They came in and took the child out a day or two before.

[00:23:22] Speaker 03:
I had spoken to the police and advised them what was going on.

[00:23:25] Speaker 03:
So there was no discrepancy as to

[00:23:28] Speaker 03:
the contentiousness between the parents and I would again say that his rights were definitely violated and we're asking that the court, the case be returned back so that we can have our day in court.

[00:23:41] Speaker 02:
Thank you.

[00:23:42] Speaker 02:
We thank both counsel for their arguments.

[00:23:43] Speaker 02:
This matter is submitted.