Marriage of Hernandez and Renteria CA5
F088472
Cal. Ct. App.Mar 11, 2025Background
- This appeal arises from a child custody dispute between Erika Hernandez (mother) and Nathanael Renteria (father) in Kings County Superior Court, California.
- A custody evaluator initially recommended shared physical and legal custody, but cited concerns about domestic violence, noting Renteria was "overcoming" the statutory presumption against custody for domestic violence offenders under Family Code section 3044. A separate evaluator recommended sole custody for Hernandez.
- Hernandez testified to repeated acts of domestic violence by Renteria, had a restraining order against him, and alleged several violations of it; Renteria disputed these allegations.
- Renteria completed a batterer's treatment program, anger management, and parenting classes, but the trial court found his explanations for alleged restraining order violations not credible compared to Hernandez’s testimony.
- The trial court awarded sole legal and physical custody to Hernandez, granted Renteria limited visitation (at Hernandez’s discretion or their son’s choice), and made detailed findings under section 3044, concluding the domestic violence presumption was not rebutted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Judicial Bias | Court was biased in questioning and handling matters | No argument/appearance | No evidence of bias; fair process |
| Compliance with Section 3044 | Court failed to follow and advise on § 3044 | Domestic violence presumption applies | Any error was not prejudicial |
| Restraining Order Violation Evidence | Insufficient evidence of violations | Hernandez’s testimony credible | Evidence supported court's findings |
| Consideration of Union Activity | Court misused union activity evidence | Conduct relevant to motivation/conflict | Court’s view was reasonable |
Key Cases Cited
- Brown v. American Bicycle Group, LLC, 224 Cal.App.4th 665 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014) (due process requires an impartial judge in civil cases)
- Huang v. Hanks, 23 Cal.App.5th 179 (Cal. Ct. App. 2018) (judicial bias claims on appeal require evidence of prejudice)
- Jameson v. Desta, 5 Cal.5th 594 (Cal. 2018) (appellant bears burden to show reversible error)
- People v. Panah, 35 Cal.4th 395 (Cal. 2005) (disqualification order only reviewable by writ, not direct appeal)