Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-01451/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-01451-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BARRY BROWN, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

JON ALEXANDER, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 13-cv-01451-RS 

ORDER GRANTING PETITION TO 

REMOVE GUARDIAN AD LITEM 

BARRY BROWN

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Jennifer Brown and Daniel Crockett1had a short marriage and lengthy, 

acrimonious divorce. During the divorce proceedings Brown accused Crockett of sexually 

abusing their minor children, Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2. She and her father, plaintiff Barry 

Brown, have filed this lawsuit on behalf of themselves and Jane Does 1 and 2, averring that 

various officials in Del Norte County conspired with Crockett to deprive them of various 

constitutional rights in connection with their attempts to instigate an investigation into allegations 

that Crockett sexually abused Jane Does 1 and 2. After filing their complaint, the Browns filed an 

ex parte petition to appoint Barry Brown as the children’s guardian ad litem in this matter, which 

was granted. Defendants petition to remove and replace Brown as the guardian ad litem on the 

basis that Brown is unsuitable to serve as the guardian ad litem. They seek the appointment as the 

 

1

Jennifer Brown’s claims against Daniel Crockett have been dismissed with prejudice. Only the 

defendants from Del Norte County remain in this suit.

Case 3:13-cv-01451-RS Document 106 Filed 11/20/15 Page 1 of 4
CASE NO. 13-cv-01451-RS

2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

guardian ad litem of Crockett or Joyce Crockett, the children’s paternal grandmother. In the 

alternative, defendants suggest that the court accept suggestions for an alternative guardian ad 

litem. 

Pursuant to Local Rule 7-1(b), this matter is suitable for disposition without oral argument.

Because defendants have presented evidence of Barry Brown’s potential conflict of interest with 

Jane Does 1 and 2, the motion to remove Barry Brown as guardian ad litem is granted. Neither 

Daniel nor Joyce Crockett will replace Barry Brown as guardian ad litem because of the potential 

for their interests to diverge from those of Jane Does 1 and 2. The parties must meet and confer to 

identify three potential guardians.

II. DISCUSSION

When a minor is a litigant, “[t]he Court has a duty to ensure that [the] minor’s interest[s]

are protected.” Bhatia v. Corrigan, No. C 07-2054 CW, 2007 WL 1455908, at *1 (N.D. Cal. May 

16, 2007) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c); In re Chicago, Rock Island & Pac. R.R. Co., 788 F.2d 

1280, 1282 (7th Cir. 1986)). A guardian ad litem is like the minor’s agent whose purpose is to 

protect the minor’s interests in the litigation. Williams v. Superior Court, 147 Cal. App. 4th 36, 47 

(2007). While a guardian ad litem “may make tactical and even fundamental decisions affecting 

the litigation,” he or she must make those decisions “always with the interest of the guardian’s 

charge in mind” and may not “compromise fundamental rights . . . without some countervailing 

and significant benefit.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

In general, a parent who is also a party to the lawsuit is presumed to be a suitable guardian

ad litem, and so the court often appoints the parent as guardian ad litem upon receipt of an ex parte 

application without exercising much discretion. Bhatia, 2007 WL 1455908, at *1. “After 

appointing a guardian ad litem, a court maintains a continuing obligation to supervise the guardian 

ad litem’s work.” Neilson v. Colgate-Palmolive Co., 199 F.3d 642, 652 (2d Cir. 1999) (citing

Dacanay v. Mendoza, 573 F.2d 1075, 1079 (9th Cir.1978). 

When “a parent has an actual or potential conflict of interest with his child,” however, “the 

parent has no right to control or influence the child’s litigation.” Williams v. Superior Court, 147 

Case 3:13-cv-01451-RS Document 106 Filed 11/20/15 Page 2 of 4
CASE NO. 13-cv-01451-RS

3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Cal. App. 4th 36, 50 (2007). If the court concludes that a non-parental guardian ad litem would 

better protect the minor’s interests, then it has a right to select a non-parental guardian. M.S. v. 

Wermers, 557 F.2d 170, 175 (8th Cir. 1977); see also Guerrero v. Brentwood Union Sch. Dist., 

No. C 13-03873 LB, 2014 WL 1028862, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 17, 2014). Although the current 

guardian ad litem is not a parent, the principle remains the same: the court has a duty to ensure 

that the guardian ad litem will represent the best interests of Jane Does 1 and 2.

This case is rife with family conflict. Jennifer Brown and Crockett have litigated 

aggressively their right to have sole custody of their children. Throughout these tumultuous 

proceedings Child Welfare Services has taken custody of Jane Does 1 and 2 and placed them in 

foster care multiple times. Jennifer and Barry Brown have been accused of kidnapping the 

children. Crockett is accused of molesting the children. These inflammatory accusations and the 

heated nature of the litigation between the Browns and the Crocketts in the state courts raise 

serious concerns about whether members of either family can adequately represent the interests of 

Jane Does 1 and 2.

In addition, the Del Norte County Superior Courts apparently do not believe Barry Brown

should have contact with Jane Does 1 and 2, which would significantly undermine his ability to 

represent their interests. Currently, Crockett and Brown have joint legal custody of the children, 

but Crockett has sole physical custody. Jennifer Brown has the right to supervised visitation with 

the children five hours each week. In January 2014, Barry and his wife, Yvonne Brown, sought de 

facto parental status from the Del Norte Juvenile Court. The court denied that request. When the 

Browns appealed, the Court of Appeal affirmed the denial of de facto parent status because it 

found “sufficient reasonable grounds on which to find that visitation with [the Browns] would not 

be in [Jane Doe 1’s and Jane Doe 2’s] best interests.” In re N.C., No. A141406, 2014 WL 

7184749, at *7 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 17, 2014). This factual finding raises significant concerns 

about whether Barry Brown should and can serve as guardian ad litem in this matter. 

Accordingly, there is good cause to find that Barry Brown should be removed as guardian ad 

litem; defendants’ motion for removal is granted.

Case 3:13-cv-01451-RS Document 106 Filed 11/20/15 Page 3 of 4
CASE NO. 13-cv-01451-RS

4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Defendants also request appointment of either Daniel or Joyce Crockett as guardian ad 

litem. Daniel Crockett was initially a defendant to this lawsuit. His alleged behavior underlies all 

of plaintiffs’ claims against the county. As such, he has an apparent conflict of interest with his 

daughters in this matter. Although there is very little information in the record about Joyce 

Crockett, the court is convinced that the minors’ guardian ad litem should not be a member of the 

Crockett or Brown families. Therefore, defendants’ request to appoint Daniel or Joyce Crockett as 

guardian ad litem is denied.

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, defendants’ motion to remove and replace the guardian ad litem 

for Jane Does 1 and 2 is granted in part and denied in part. Barry Brown is no longer the guardian 

ad litem in this matter. Plaintiffs and the county defendants each are ordered to submit a list of 

three suitable guardians, along with their contact information, their agreement to serve, and a brief 

explanation of why they are suitable within two weeks of this order. See Bhatia, 2007 WL 

1455908, at *2.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 20, 2015

______________________________________

RICHARD SEEBORG

United States District Judge

Case 3:13-cv-01451-RS Document 106 Filed 11/20/15 Page 4 of 4