J.M. v. G.H.
228 Cal. App. 4th 925
Cal. Ct. App.2014Background
- J.M. and G.H. are unwed parents of Joey; G.H. is an Israeli citizen and sought relocation to Israel with Joey for the school year.
- Trial court bifurcated issues: status of paternity decided in 2010; custody and relocation decided after 12 days of trial in 2012.
- Court awarded joint legal and physical custody and permitted G.H. to relocate with Joey to Israel during the school year, with Jo ey in Jonathan’s care during summers and breaks.
- Evidence included Dr. Anthony Aloia’s custody evaluation; both parents deemed fully adequate and loving but with different strengths in parenting and the child’s attachments.
- Jonathan later moved to set aside the judgment based on alleged license suspension issues; DMV later found no charges and suspension overturned; license status did not affect custody order.
- Jonathan appeals asserting multiple challenges, including 3048 findings, relocation protections, and overall discretion; the appellate court affirms.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Need for 3048 findings | Jonathan asserts eight 3048 factors required due to risk of abduction. | Court found no abduction risk; no eight findings required. | No mandatory 3048 findings were required; no abduction risk found. |
| Adequacy of relocation protections | Relocation protections insufficient under Condon. | Order imposed adequate protections, including jurisdiction and registration. | Protections were adequate under Condon and Abargil approach; sanctions feasible given G.H.’s resources. |
| Best interests standard and relocation | Court misapplied standards, prioritizing detriment over best interests. | Court correctly weighed best interests, considering detriment and bonds with both parents. | Court properly applied best interests standard in move-away context. |
| Findings on stability and reasons for move | Court failed to address stability and reasons for move adequately. | Court found substantial evidence of legitimate reasons and considered stability. | Findings supported by substantial evidence; not an abuse of discretion. |
| Custody of stepsiblings/ Ryan | Risk to Ryan and Joey’s relationship not adequately addressed. | Joey’s bond with Ryan and stepsiblings was weighed; separation permitted without compelling circumstances. | No compelling circumstances required to separate Ryan from Joey; blended family considerations tolerated. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Marriage of LaMusga, 32 Cal.4th 1072 (Cal. 2004) (eight relocation factors; best interest balancing in move cases)
- In re Marriage of Condon, 62 Cal.App.4th 533 (Cal. App. 1998) (necessity to enforce California order internationally; bonds/sanctions)
- Burgess, 13 Cal.4th 25 (Cal. 1996) (parental residence change presumptions; best interest framework)
- F.T. v. L.J., 194 Cal.App.4th 1 (Cal. App. 2011) (move-away misuse of detriment focus; proper relocation analysis)
- In re Marriage of Williams, 88 Cal.App.4th 808 (Cal. App. 2001) (compelling circumstances and sibling separation guidance)
- In re Marriage of Heath, 122 Cal.App.4th 444 (Cal. App. 2004) (sibling separation and compelling circumstances; caution against speculation)
- Abargil, 106 Cal.App.4th 1294 (Cal. App. 2003) (sanctions and enforcement for relocation orders; reasoning on jurisdiction)