|
p0327 REVIEW DENIED A mother's successful challenge to the constitutionality of a Family Court's nonparental visitation order did not entitle her to attorney fees under the private attorney general statute even though it led to a published decision and apparently served an important function in clarifying the law, because the California Supreme Court's subsequent grant of review in a similar case leaves the question unanswered and the benefit conferred upon the public uncertain, and because her concern about who had the right to control her children's association with other people gave her considerable personal stake in the outcome of an appeal, creating serious doubts about whether her financial burden was out of proportion to that stake.CitationPUNSLY v HO (Published Decision) 105 CA4 102 [See: CCP 1021.5; CA R of C 976(b); Trope v Katz 11 C4 274, T/AT 11/95; Punsly v Ho 87 CA4 1099; Troxel v Granville 530 US 57; FUTURE v Bd of Supes 79 CA4 505]
|
|
