The California Court of Appeal has upheld a lower court's decision requiring two plaintiffs to pay 68% of the guardian ad litem (GAL) fees in a case involving elder abuse restraining orders. The ruling affects Blanca Marcelina Flores and Rocio Gabriela Flores, who sought to maintain contact with their elderly mother amid disputes with their siblings. This decision underscores the court's authority in determining fee allocations in family law cases.

The case, titled Flores v. Palacio (G066214), arose from a complex family dispute over the care and visitation rights of the plaintiffs' elderly mother. The court's ruling highlights the responsibilities of parties involved in such cases, particularly regarding the financial implications of legal proceedings.

Background

Blanca Marcelina Flores and Rocio Gabriela Flores filed requests for elder abuse restraining orders in 2023 to secure visitation rights with their elderly mother. The defendants in the case included their six siblings, five of whom were named in the appeal. The court consolidated the cases for trial and appointed a GAL to represent the interests of the elderly mother.

As the case progressed, the GAL recommended professionally monitored visits for the plaintiffs. Although the court initially lifted restrictions on one plaintiff, it reinstated them due to ongoing conflicts between the plaintiffs, their siblings, and the mother's caregivers. In February 2025, an agreement was reached regarding visitation.

In March 2025, the GAL filed a petition for payment of her fees and costs, totaling $70,620, from the mother's estate. However, the defendants argued that the plaintiffs should bear the costs due to what they claimed were baseless allegations. The court ultimately ruled that the plaintiffs were responsible for 68% of the GAL fees, citing their significant role in the extent of the incurred costs.

The Ruling

The California Court of Appeal affirmed the lower court's order, stating that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate any error in the allocation of the GAL fees. The court noted that under Probate Code section 1003, subdivision (c), the reasonable expenses of the GAL are determined by the court and can be paid from the estate or other sources as the court orders.

The court ruled, "[t]o the extent the litigation accomplished that goal by creating rules to allow visits while protecting the elder and her assets, the elder benefitted. However, the court further finds that this could and should have been accomplished much sooner and at far less expense than what transpired, and that [plaintiffs] bear significant responsibility for the extent of the GAL fees incurred."

The judges on the panel included Presiding Justice Motoike, Justice Servino, and Justice Delaney. The court found that the plaintiffs did not provide adequate evidence to support their claims that the GAL fees should have been paid from the mother's estate or that they were not responsible for the incurred costs.

Impact

This ruling has significant implications for similar family law cases, particularly those involving elder abuse and visitation rights. It reinforces the court's discretion in determining how GAL fees are allocated and emphasizes that parties may be held financially responsible for the costs associated with legal proceedings, especially when they contribute to the complexity and duration of the case.

The decision also serves as a reminder for parties involved in family disputes to be aware of the financial consequences of their actions in court. By affirming the lower court's ruling, the appellate court has set a precedent that could influence future cases involving the allocation of GAL fees and costs.

What's Next

While the plaintiffs can seek further legal recourse, the court's ruling stands as it is. There are no indications of a related case pending at this time. The plaintiffs' options for appeal are limited, as the appellate court has already affirmed the lower court's decision.