Ellis v. Lyons CA2/5
2 Cal. App. 5th 404
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Parents stipulated to joint legal and physical custody in 2009; child (Minor) lived mostly with Mother in Massachusetts; Father lived in Southern California and had periodic visitation (five weeks in summer, spring break, alternating winter breaks).
- During a 2014 spring-break visit in California, Father engaged in a brief physical altercation with his brother‑in‑law while Minor was present; Minor was not physically injured but later reported fear and said Father threatened to slap her.
- Mother sought emergency relief in California but instead obtained a temporary protective order in Massachusetts after a hearing where the Massachusetts court found Minor credible and in reasonable fear; that order barred Father from contacting Minor and was extended temporarily to allow California family‑law proceedings to address custody.
- Mother then moved in Los Angeles Superior Court to modify custody to sole legal/physical custody and to reinstate child support, invoking Family Code § 3044 (a rebuttable presumption against awarding custody to a parent who perpetrated domestic violence).
- The California family law court heard extensive testimony, found Mother and Minor only intermittently credible, expressly relied on Family Code § 3040 (preference for joint custody and frequent contact) and denied Mother’s custody modification and request to reinstate child support.
- The Court of Appeal reversed and remanded the custody ruling because the family law court failed to apply § 3044’s rebuttable presumption (and impermissibly relied on § 3040), but affirmed the denial of reinstated child support.
Issues
| Issue | Mother’s Argument | Father’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the family court must apply Fam. Code § 3044 when another court found Father’s conduct placed Minor in reasonable apprehension of imminent serious bodily injury | Section 3044 applies because the Massachusetts court’s finding qualifies as a finding "by any court" that triggers the § 3044 rebuttable presumption against awarding custody to a perpetrator of domestic violence | § 3044 does not apply because the alleged abuse did not involve Mother, Minor, or Minor’s siblings being physically harmed by Father; the incident didn’t injure Minor | Reversed and remanded: § 3044 applied (Massachusetts finding satisfied the statute); family court erred by not applying the presumption and by relying on § 3040 in whole or in part to rebut it |
| Whether the family court could rely on Family Code § 3040’s preference for frequent and continuing contact to rebut § 3044’s presumption | § 3044 prohibits using § 3040(1)’s preference to rebut the domestic‑violence presumption | Relied on § 3040 to justify maintaining joint custody for continuity and contact | Court of Appeal held the family court misapplied law: relying on § 3040 to rebut § 3044 is forbidden; necessitates remand for decision under § 3044’s framework |
| What effect a foreign court’s protective‑order findings have in California custody proceedings | Massachusetts court’s finding counts under § 3044(d)(2) as a finding by "any court," triggering the rebuttable presumption; California court must apply § 3044 and consider its specified factors | Father argued the Massachusetts proceedings were forum shopping and insufficient; but did not contest that the order was binding | The Court of Appeal held the Massachusetts finding satisfied § 3044(d)(2); collateral estoppel not required—§ 3044 governs the effect of the foreign order in California |
| Whether denying Mother’s request to reinstate child support was an abuse of discretion | Mother sought support reinstated and imputation of income to Father | Family court found Mother failed to meet burden to impute income; Father remained unemployed | Denial of child support reinstatement affirmed (no abuse of discretion) |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Marriage of Burgess, 13 Cal.4th 25 (1996) (standard of appellate review for custody modification is abuse of discretion)
- In re Marriage of Brown and Yana, 37 Cal.4th 947 (2006) (best‑interest standard governs custody determinations)
- In re Marriage of Fajola, 230 Cal.App.4th 1487 (2014) (reversal required where trial court failed to apply Family Code § 3044 presumption)
- Christina L. v. Chauncey B., 229 Cal.App.4th 731 (2014) (reversed where record did not show application of § 3044 presumption)
- Keith R. v. Superior Court, 174 Cal.App.4th 1047 (2009) (domestic violence finding changes burden of persuasion under best‑interest analysis but does not limit admissible evidence)
- F.T. v. L.J., 194 Cal.App.4th 1 (2011) (§ 3044 presumption is rebuttable and court may consider evidence beyond that relied on by the foreign court)
- Farmers Ins. Exch. v. Superior Court, 218 Cal.App.4th 96 (2013) (appellate review when trial court misapprehends governing law may constitute abuse of discretion)