Previously in our family law blog, we shared the story of how our firm won an appellate reversal protecting our client's right to needs-based attorney's fees under California Family Code section 2030. The ruling that reaffirmed a clear legal principle: family courts cannot deny attorney's fees based on factors that have nothing to do with financial need. A bit unexpectedly, the case helped someone else in the very same family with a separate family law case just a short while later.
A Grandmother's Fight
In California, grandparents have recognized legal rights to seek visitation with their grandchildren under certain circumstances. When those grandparents’ rights are contested, grandparents can find themselves dealing with complex family court proceedings and facing attorneys on the other side while needing legal representation of their own. For many grandparents, particularly those on fixed incomes, the cost of hiring legal counsel can be steep, if not prohibitive.
That was exactly the situation our client found herself in. A retired grandmother living with family and surviving on Social Security income and public assistance totaling approximately $1,662 per month, she was fighting for the right to maintain a relationship with her grandchildren against their father, who is a surgeon earning approximately $800,000 per year with substantial real estate assets. The financial gap between them was massive, to say the least.
To fund her legal fight, she did what the law allows: she requested that the court order the father to help cover her attorney's fees under Family Code section 2030, the same statute at the center of our firm's prior appellate win. Given the dramatic income disparity, her request was squarely within the statute's purpose, but the trial court denied it anyway.
What the Trial Court Got Wrong
The court's reasoning focused on two factors:
- The grandmother had allegedly misused her grandchildren's 529 college savings accounts.
- She did not have a sufficiently significant relationship with the grandchildren to justify the fees.
However, even when taking both of those allegations at face value, neither one has anything to do with whether she qualifies for attorney's fees under section 2030. The statute does not ask whether a party has mishandled finances in the past or whether their relationship with other parties meets some undefined threshold.
Instead, section 2030 asks:
- Is there a disparity in each party's access to funds?
- Can one party afford to pay for both parties' legal representation?
That is the entire analysis. By basing its denial on conduct-related factors, the trial court applied the wrong legal standard, which was the same mistake a different trial court made in the case we covered in Part 1 of this mini-blog series.
The Appeal & The Ruling
Attorney Lance Claery, Fredrick Medill, Eli Hammond, and Kai Lucid of Claery & Hammond, LLP brought the case to the California Court of Appeal, Second District, arguing that the trial court had abused its discretion by resting its decision on factors that section 2030 does not authorize.
The appellate court agreed. It reversed the trial court's denial and remanded the case, directing the lower court to make the required findings under section 2030, which focused on financial disparity and ability to pay, not on the grandmother's conduct or the nature of her relationship with her grandchildren.
What makes this ruling especially notable is what the appellate court relied on to reach its decision. It cited our firm's prior appellate win, which was the case we described in Part 1, as the controlling precedent. In other words, the legal argument our firm successfully made in the first case months prior became the foundation for the second. One win built directly on the other.
Access to Justice Shouldn't Depend on Your Bank Account
Grandparents' rights cases can be emotionally and legally complex. When a grandparent is retired, living on a fixed income, and facing a well-resourced opposing party, the practical ability to participate meaningfully in court becomes a serious concern. California's section 2030 exists precisely to address that kind of imbalance, and this ruling once again reinforces that courts must apply it faithfully, without substituting their own judgment about a party's character for the financial analysis the law requires.
For anyone in a similar situation, whether a grandparent seeking access to grandchildren or any party in a family law matter where legal fees are a real barrier, this case is a reminder that the law provides protections worth fighting for.
At Claery & Hammond, LLP, we represent clients at every level of the legal process for family law and divorce cases, including on appeal. If you have a case in Los Angeles and are worried about financial barriers to representation or need a law firm that can handle appellate cases, call us today at (310) 817-6904 to schedule your free initial case consultation.