25 Cal. App. 5th 794
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2018Background
- Parents H.L. (Mother) and Jaime G. (Father) disputed custody of their 7‑year‑old son, Matthew; multiple hearings occurred between Sept–Jan. Mother obtained a domestic violence restraining order (DVRO) against Father.
- The family court found Father had perpetrated domestic violence but nevertheless changed custody from Mother's sole custody to joint legal and physical custody, keeping a visitation schedule favoring Father.
- Mother appealed, arguing the court failed to properly apply Family Code § 3044 (rebuttable presumption against awarding custody to a parent who committed domestic violence) and failed to state required findings.
- At the January hearing the trial judge began to recite findings under § 3044(b)’s seven factors but stopped and terminated the hearing after repeated interruptions by Mother’s counsel; the court did not complete an on‑the‑record walkthrough of each factor nor issue written findings.
- Statutory context: § 3044 creates a presumption that awarding custody to a domestic violence perpetrator is detrimental and lists seven factors the court "shall" consider; § 3011(e)(1) requires the court to state its reasons in writing or on the record when it awards sole or joint custody to an alleged abuser.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mother) | Defendant's Argument (Father) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court complied with § 3011(e)(1) and § 3044 when awarding custody to a parent found to have perpetrated domestic violence | Mother argued the court failed to make the required written or on‑the‑record specific findings addressing each of the seven § 3044(b) factors before awarding joint custody to Father | Father argued the court considered domestic violence and exercised discretion that § 3044 does not inexorably bar custody or visitation; court balanced factors and found Father more suitable | Reversed and remanded: court must hold a new hearing and provide an express statement of reasons, in writing or on the record, that specifically addresses each of the seven § 3044(b) factors |
| Whether the trial court considered domestic violence at all in its custody analysis | Mother contended the court ignored domestic violence evidence | Father / court maintained the court did consider domestic violence and issued a DVRO, and balanced it against child’s best interests | Court held the record shows the trial court did consider domestic violence, but the required specific findings were not completed; remand required for proper findings |
| Whether Mother is entitled to immediate sole custody on appeal | Mother asked for immediate sole custody | Father opposed; trial court is best positioned to resolve custody after full findings | Denied: appellate court remanded for trial court to document analysis under § 3044; custody decision left to trial court |
Key Cases Cited
- Celia S. v. Hugo H., 3 Cal.App.5th 655 (custody/visitation orders; standard of review)
- Apple Inc. v. Superior Court, 56 Cal.4th 128 (statutory interpretation principles)