S.S. v. L.S. CA5, F088078

S.S. (father) and L.S. (mother), non-married parents, separated in 2021 after living together for over a decade; their daughter, J.S., was born in 2010.
Both parents filed for domestic violence restraining orders, but the court found insufficient evidence for either.
Initially, joint legal custody was ordered with father having sole physical custody and mother and daughter attending reunification counseling.
Due to daughter’s emotional distress following contact with father, subsequent court orders gave mother sole legal and physical custody, suspended father’s visitation, and required father to undergo at least six months of therapy before seeking modification.
Family court and expert evaluations found father’s behavior (over-involvement, sharing adult issues, ignoring court orders) emotionally harmed daughter, impacting her social development and well-being.
Father appealed, arguing constitutional violations, evidentiary errors, and judicial bias; mother did not file a respondent’s brief. The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s custody order in favor of mother.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Due Process (Access to Evidence)	Withholding unredacted CPS report and sealed transcript violated rights.	No response	No prejudice shown; no right to unredacted records or different outcome.
Child’s Right to Testify/Preference	Court denied daughter's right to express custody preference.	No response	Court followed discretion; considered daughter’s input as required by law.
First and Fifth Amendment Violations	Court’s evidentiary rulings violated right to petition and self-incrim.	No response	No violation; evidentiary rulings not constitutional violations.
Judicial Bias	Judge’s rulings and later recusal showed bias.	No response	No bias shown; repeated adverse rulings and recusal do not prove bias.

Denham v. Superior Court, 2 Cal.3d 557 (presumption of correctness of trial court orders)
Jameson v. Desta, 5 Cal.5th 594 (appellant’s burden to show error on appeal)
In re Marriage of Hopson, 110 Cal.App.3d 884 (child’s preference not binding in custody decisions)
Tarling v. Tarling, 186 Cal.App.2d 8 (court discretion on hearing child’s input in custody matters)
In re S.C., 138 Cal.App.4th 396 (requirement of meaningful legal analysis and citation for appellate review)