Camacho vs. Camacho

Ronald Melin Supancic

Case Conclusion Date:January 1, 1985

Practice Area:Family

Outcome:Changed the law of California to better protect children.

Description:In the case of Camacho v. Camacho (1985) 173 Cal. App. 3d 214 [218 Cal.Rptr. 810] I argued six points in support of the argument I proffered to uphold the ruling of the Trial Court ordering the father to participate in therapy with the minor. The appellate court held that it was error to order the father in this case to attend counseling indefinitely when there was no finding that the father’s mental health was at issue. The court also held that it was a violation of the father’s due process rights to undergo psychiatric treatment when nothing in the record suggested a need for therapy. Nothing in the psychologist’s testimony indicated that the child would suffer trauma if the father did not see his father. In oral argument the Court remarked that there was no appropriate statute to support the ruling of the trial court which had been challenged by Mr. Camacho. I took the remark to the Legislative Affairs Committee of the San Fernando Valley Bar Association and Family Code Section 3190 was the result. The six points in the statute reflect the six conditions in which a Judge may order parental therapy in disputed custody proceedings were the same as those I argued before the Appellate Court. In losing the Appeal we changed the law of California.