Marriage of K.R. and L.R. CA4/1, D078436

Parents married in 1999; child born 2005; extensive custody litigation after separation in 2015; child was 15 at time of challenged orders.
May–Nov 2017–2018: multiple hearings; parties entered a settlement incorporated as a final custody determination under Montenegro v. Diaz (2018 FOAH), which included a 5–2–2–5 schedule and an agreement to use Dr. Lori Love as parenting coordinator.
Mother later refused to work with the agreed parenting coordinator and repeatedly violated court orders (including a school no-contact order); the parties kept returning to court.
July–Dec 2019: court granted Father sole legal custody (December 2019) but omitted an order requiring a new parenting coordinator.
Father filed RFOs and an ex parte in mid‑2020 alleging Mother interfered with schooling and activities; after FCS mediation and hearings, the court (Aug. 25–26, 2020) modified the school‑week parenting schedule (giving Father more weekday time), confirmed sole legal custody to Father, declined to appoint a parenting coordinator absent the parties’ agreement, and entered a FOAH.
Mother appealed, arguing the court improperly modified a final custody determination without finding changed circumstances, that evidence was insufficient and the change was not in the child’s best interest, and that the court erred by refusing to enforce/appoint a parenting coordinator.

Issue	Mother’s Argument	Father’s Argument	Held
Whether the changed‑circumstances rule (Montenegro) applied	The August 2020 order modified a prior final custody determination, so the court needed to find a significant changed circumstance and did not	The court only altered the parenting/weekday schedule, not custody; Montenegro therefore did not apply	The court altered the parenting schedule but did not change custody; changed‑circumstances rule did not apply
Whether evidence supported that the modification was in the child’s best interest	Insufficient evidence; court disregarded FCS and minor’s counsel recommendations favoring status quo	Ongoing parental conflict, Mother’s failure to follow orders, and school‑contact issues supported granting Father more weekday time	Substantial evidence supported the court’s best‑interest determination; no abuse of discretion
Whether the court erred by refusing to enforce or appoint a parenting coordinator	The prior Montenegro incorporation and agreements required the court to enforce or appoint a new coordinator	The July 2020 FOAH omitted the FCS paragraph recommending a coordinator and, absent parties’ agreement, court lacks authority to delegate judicial power to a coordinator	Court correctly refused to appoint/enforce a parenting coordinator without parental agreement; no error

Montenegro v. Diaz, 26 Cal.4th 249 (2001) (changed‑circumstances rule for modifying final custody determinations)
In re Marriage of Brown & Yana, 37 Cal.4th 947 (2006) (explaining changed‑circumstances rule)
In re Marriage of Burgess, 13 Cal.4th 25 (1996) (trial court has broad discretion to modify contact/visitation; may avoid custody change by adjusting schedule)
Enrique M. v. Angelina V., 121 Cal.App.4th 1371 (2004) (changed‑circumstances rule does not apply to ordinary parenting‑time schedule alterations)
In re Marriage of Birnbaum, 211 Cal.App.3d 1508 (1989) (distinguishing schedule changes from custody changes)
In re Marriage of Lucio, 161 Cal.App.4th 1068 (2008) (same: schedule changes need not trigger changed‑circumstances rule)
In re Marriage of McKean, 41 Cal.App.5th 1083 (2019) (changed‑circumstances required where prior order awarded joint legal and physical custody but court later awarded sole custody)
In re Marriage of Olson, 14 Cal.App.4th 1 (1993) (court may not delegate judicial authority to nonjudicial officials absent agreement)
In re Marriage of LaMusga, 32 Cal.4th 1072 (2004) (court must consider parents’ past conduct in custody determinations)