The Rule of In re the Domestic Partnership of Torres Campos and Munoz is that a party forfeits the right to challenge a trial court's reliance on fictitious case authorities when that party's own counsel drafted and submitted the order containing those fabricated citations without objecting or alerting the court to the error, under circumstances where the party had ample opportunity to verify the citations and correct the error in the trial court.
Appeal from order denying shared custody and visitation of pet dog in Superior Court, San Diego County.
Petitioner Appellant was Joan Pablo Torres Campos — the former domestic partner seeking shared custody and visitation of pet dog Kyra under Family Code section 2605.
Respondent was Leslie Ann Munoz — the former domestic partner who had custody of the dog and opposed the custody and visitation request.
The suit sounded in family law regarding pet custody and visitation following dissolution of domestic partnership. No cross-claims were identified.
The key substantive facts leading to the suit were that two years after an uncontested dissolution judgment that did not address pets, Torres filed a request for order seeking shared custody and visitation of pet dog Kyra under Family Code section 2605, which Munoz opposed claiming Torres had a history of harassment and that the dog provided her emotional support.
The procedural result leading to the Appeal: The trial court denied Torres's request for pet custody and visitation, ruling that based on testimony regarding Munoz's mental state and the parties' relationship history, continued interaction between the parties would not be in their best interests for mental stability, and Torres lacked a substantial relationship with the dog based on lack of recent visitation.
The key question(s) on Appeal: 1. Whether the trial court's reliance on fictitious case authorities in its written order requires reversal 2. Whether Family Code section 2605 should adopt a multi-factor test for determining pet custody and visitation
The Appellate Court held that while relying on fictional case authorities constitutes an abuse of discretion, Torres forfeited his challenge by having his own counsel draft and submit the order containing the fabricated citations without objecting or verifying them, and that Torres failed to provide an adequate appellate record to evaluate his proposed multi-factor test argument.
The case is inapplicable when the challenging party did not draft the order containing fictitious citations, when the party timely objected to reliance on unverified authorities, or when an adequate appellate record including hearing transcripts is provided to evaluate substantive legal arguments.
The case leaves open what multi-factor test should apply under Family Code section 2605 for pet custody determinations, whether different forfeiture principles would apply if opposing counsel rather than appellant's counsel had drafted the problematic order, and guidelines for verification of citations in AI-generated legal research.
Counsel
For Appellant: Law Offices of David C. Beavans, David C. Beavans
For Respondent: Bonar Law Group, Roxanne Chung Bonar