In re Tarin v. Lind: Alienation of Affection
Title: In re the Matter of Dolores Tarin v. Rochelle Lind (Alienation of Affection)
Court: California Court of Appeal, Second District
Citation: Published Opinion, (2020) 47 Cal.App.5th 395
File Date: 04/03/2020
Description: Plaintiff Dolores Tarin appeals after the trial court granted judgments on the pleadings in favor of defendants Rochelle Lind and Jesse Tarin. Dolores and Jesse are sisters. Rochelle is Jesse’s daughter. Dolores alleged that defendants interfered with Dolores’ relationship with her mother, Lucy, “by . . . unduly influencing [Lucy] and distorting her understanding and perception” of Dolores “such that [Lucy] would fully reject and exclude” Dolores “from her life.” Dolores alleged that she suffered emotional harm from the deprivation of “the society, care and affection” of her mother.
Dolores asserted nine causes of action, including her Second cause of action for intentional interference with parental consortium. The trial court concluded that Dolores had not stated a cause of action because only a minor child could bring an intentional interference claim, and granted Rochelle’s motion in limine. Defendants then sought judgment on the pleadings on the other causes of action contending that they “are legally meaningless redundancies of the Second Cause of Action” and “should be dismissed on the same grounds.” The trial court determined that the first five causes of action all arose out of the same primary right, and granted defendants’ request for judgment on the pleadings.
The Court of Appeal for the Second District held that there is no support in statute or precedent for Dolores’ cause of action for interference with parental consortium, stating that “California law does not recognize causes of action based on the abduction or enticement of a parent away from a child resulting in alienation of affection.” As to the other causes of action, the Court of Appeal held that they all allege harms arising from the loss of the mother/child relationship. “As alleged, those causes of action are inseparable from the underlying conduct of abduction of a parent resulting in alienation of affection, and thus are not cognizable under California law.”
Opinion: Tarin v. Lind 4-3-20
The case listed here was not handled by Walzer Melcher unless the description states that Walzer Melcher appeared as counsel.