J.K. v. V.S.
Filed 8/8/13 J.K. v. V.S. CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
California
Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or
relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except
as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This
opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for
purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF
APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THIRD APPELLATE
DISTRICT
(Sacramento)
J.K.,
Respondent,
v.
V.S.,
Appellant.
C068428
(Super. Ct. No. 09FL03464)
Appellant
V.S. (mother), appeals from a court order granting respondent J.K. (father),
sole legal and physical custody of
the parties’ minor child and limiting mother’s visitation with the child to
supervised, therapeutic visitation.
name="_ftnref1" title="">[1] Mother’s only claim on appeal relative to
that order is that the “[t]rial court prejudicially erred in granting sole
custody and physical custody to the alleged father without prior determination
of paternity Uniform Act on Blood Test Cal. Fam. Code Section 7550, or without
the burden of proof of paternity Cal. Fam. Code Section 7555.†Finding her claim lacks merit, we affirm the
judgment.
BACKGROUND
Mother has
elected to proceed on a clerk’s transcript.
(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.121.)
Thus, the appellate record does not include a reporter’s transcript of
the hearing in this matter. This is
referred to as a “judgment roll†appeal.
(Allen v. Toten (1985)
172 Cal.App.3d 1079, 1082-1083; Krueger
v. Bank of America (1983) 145 Cal.App.3d 204, 207.)
The limited
record we have establishes that in May 2009, father filed a Uniform Parentage
Petition for Custody and Support in
County Superior Court. A final
judgment establishing paternity, pursuant to which respondent was found to be
the minor child’s father, was then entered in February 2010.
In March
2010, the trial court adopted Family Court Services’ recommendations regarding
custody and visitation as temporary orders.
The court also ordered the parties to participate in a Family Code
section 3111 evaluation. The issues of
custody and visitation were set for trial in June 2010, along with mother’s
request for a domestic violence restraining
order.
In June
2010, the trial court denied mother’s request for a domestic violence
restraining order and issued numerous other orders. No orders were issued regarding custody of
the minor.
In October
2010, the trial court adopted the Family Code section 3111 evaluator’s custody
recommendations as the orders of the court.
Accordingly, father was granted sole legal and physical custody of the
minor child and mother’s parenting time was limited to four hours per
week. The trial court further ordered
that mother’s parenting time be supervised by a licensed professional and that
mother submit to an Evidence Code section 730 psychological evaluation.
By December
2010, mother had not yet obtained the court-ordered psychological
evaluation. In March 2011, based on
allegations that mother was using her telephone calls with the minor child to
abuse him psychologically, the court ordered mother to have no more telephone
contact with the minor and further limited her parenting time to supervised,
therapeutic visitation.
Trial on
the issues of custody and visitation
took place on April 1, 2011. Both
parties were present at trial; mother appeared without counsel. Following the admission of evidence and
argument, the trial court granted father sole legal and physical custody of the
minor and continued to limit mother’s parenting time to supervised, therapeutic
visitation.
The court
found mother continued refusing to comply with the court’s prior order for a
psychological evaluation. The court
ordered mother to participate in counseling and obtain a psychological
assessment “so as to allow [mother’s] counselor/psychologist/psychiatrist to
pinpoint the issues and work on them with [her].†The court also ordered there to be no
telephone contact between mother and the minor child (noting that if there were
any telephone contact, father had a right to record the call) and deemed the
order to be a final custody determination.
DISCUSSION
Mother
contends the trial court erred in awarding father sole legal and physical
custody of the minor child without a proper paternity determination or blood
test. The judgment establishing paternity,
wherein respondent was found to be the minor child’s father, was entered in
February 2010. Mother attempted to
challenge that judgment in this appeal but that portion of her appeal was
dismissed as untimely. Accordingly, the
issue of paternity is unassailable and her claim lacks merit.
To the
extent mother is arguing either that there is insufficient evidence to support
the trial court’s order or that the trial court abused its discretion in
issuing the custody order, her claim fails.
Without a reporter’s transcript of the relevant hearing, we must presume
the court made sufficient findings to support its decision. That is, we must presume the court found that
giving father sole legal and physical custody of the minor and limiting
mother’s parenting time to therapeutic
visitation was in the minor’s best interest. Furthermore, we must conclusively presume the
evidence was sufficient to sustain the court’s findings. (Ehrler
v. Ehrler (1981) 126 Cal.App.3d 147, 154.)
On the face of this record, we find no error; we must affirm the trial
court’s decision.
DISPOSITION
The order
of the trial court is affirmed. Costs
are awarded to respondent. (Cal. Rules
of Court, rule 8.278(a)(1), (2).)
BLEASE , Acting
P. J.
We concur:
HULL , J.
BUTZ ,
J.
name="_ftn1" title="">[1] Mother initially raised claims
regarding numerous other trial court orders; however, on May 24, 2012, this
court “granted in part†father’s motion to dismiss the appeal continuing the
appeal only as to the order from the April 1, 2011, hearing. On June 14, 2012, this court also denied
mother’s petition for rehearing on the May 24, 2012, order.
name="_ftn2" title="">[2] Mother’s brief includes numerous facts
not relevant to the issue on appeal. We
limit our recitation of facts to those relevant to our decision.
