1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. Cal.Rptr.2d
  4. 100 Cal.Rptr.2d
  5. 100 Cal.Rptr.2d 749 (2000)
 

WAINWRIGHT v. SUPERIOR COURT

No. A091785.

100 Cal.Rptr.2d 749 (2000)

84 Cal.App.4th 262

Peter WAINWRIGHT, Petitioner, v. The SUPERIOR COURT of Humboldt County, Respondent; Nancy Sinkler, Real Party in Interest.

Court of Appeals of California, First District, Division One.

October 20, 2000.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Elaine Profant-Turner, Eureka, Counsel for Petitioner.

No appearance for Respondent.

Judith L. Edson, Eureka, Counsel for Real Party in Interest.

STRANKMAN, P.J.

In this writ of mandate proceeding, we must determine whether Family Code section 3011, subdivision (d) authorizes a family law court to compel a parent to submit to drug testing in a child custody proceeding. We conclude that the Family Code provision, devoid of any substantive or procedural safeguards, does not authorize court-ordered drug testing.1

FACTS

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases