Christina L. v. Chauncey B. CA1/4
229 Cal. App. 4th 731
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Mother obtained custody of the children in 2011 with Father having supervised visitation; later order granted joint custody.
- There were extensive domestic violence findings and protective orders against Father beginning in 2004, with a two-year DVPA order in 2011.
- In 2013, Father sought to modify custody and terminate or modify the restraining orders, alleging Mother’s misconduct and lack of visitation by Father.
- The trial court denied termination of the restraining orders but granted a modification to joint custody with a schedule favoring Father’s weekend visitation.
- Mother appeals, arguing the court failed to apply the §3044 presumption and that no substantial change in circumstances supported modification.
- The Court of Appeal reverses on the §3044 issue and remands for proper application of the presumption; it also discusses the changed-circumstances standard for remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by not applying the §3044 presumption | Mother argues the DVPA order triggered §3044 and the presumption against awarding custody to Father. | Father contends the court properly considered best interests under §3011 without the presumption. | Remand required to apply §3044 presumption; the presumption was not expressly considered. |
| Whether the modification relied on changed circumstances | Mother asserts no substantial change in circumstances justified modification from sole to joint custody. | Father claims changed facts (e.g., half-sister contact) warrant modified custody. | Court must assess whether changed circumstances are substantial enough to justify altering the prior order on remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- S.M. v. E.P., 184 Cal.App.4th 1249 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) (DV basis triggers §3044 presumption when DV is found)
- Keith R. v. Superior Court, 174 Cal.App.4th 1047 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) (presumption may be rebutted by showing best interests favor custody)
- F.T. v. L.J., 194 Cal.App.4th 1 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) (on remand, require explicit finding whether §3044 presumption is rebutted)
- Speelman v. Superior Court, 152 Cal.App.3d 124 (Cal. Ct. App. 1983) (changed-circumstances burden is heavy for custody modification)
- In re Marriage of Burgess, 13 Cal.4th 25 (Cal. 1996) (final custody changes require persuasive showing of change in circumstances)
- Ragghanti v. Reyes, 123 Cal.App.4th 989 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004) (substantial showing required to modify final custody order)
- In re Marriage of Brown & Yana, 37 Cal.4th 947 (Cal. 2006) (burden to show substantial change in circumstances for modification)