Habib v. Abdalla CA1/1
A171487
Cal. Ct. App.Jun 25, 2025Background
- Yasmin Habib (mother) and Mohamed Abdalla (father) are parties to a contentious dissolution case, involving ongoing disputes over custody and child support.
- Father petitioned for emergency orders in July 2024 due to fear mother might flee with the children, citing past violations and lack of cooperation.
- Minors' counsel withdrew, citing mother's interference and concerns for potential abduction or noncompliance.
- The trial court issued emergency custody and child abduction prevention orders, restricting mother from traveling with minors outside Alameda County (except for therapy in Contra Costa County).
- The court also found mother to be a vexatious litigant under Code of Civil Procedure section 391(b)(1).
- Mother appealed the travel restriction and vexatious litigant designation, but made no argument on the latter in her opening brief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Child abduction prevention order (travel restrictions) | Restrictions unreasonable; no proper consideration; father is actual flight risk. | Mother is a flight risk due to prior violations, lack of ties, and history of noncooperation. | Affirmed; restrictions supported by substantial evidence. |
| Vexatious litigant order | (No argument presented on appeal) | Mother has history of excessive filings and vexatious conduct | Issue abandoned on appeal. |
| Continuance of child support hearing | (No argument presented on appeal) | N/A | Issue abandoned on appeal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Tanner v. Tanner, 57 Cal.App.4th 419 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997) (failure to brief an appealed issue results in abandonment)
- Brewer v. Carter, 218 Cal.App.4th 1312 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013) (abuse of discretion standard in reviewing custody/abduction orders)
- In re Marriage of Smith, 225 Cal.App.3d 469 (Cal. Ct. App. 1990) (standard of review for custody decisions)
- Niko v. Foreman, 144 Cal.App.4th 344 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) (appellate deference to trial court credibility determinations)
- J.M. v. G.H., 228 Cal.App.4th 925 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014) (findings supported by substantial evidence must be upheld)