Filed 8/14/26 Marriage of Wu and Chyczewski CA4/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
In re Marriage of DAN WU and
JOHN CHYCZEWSKI.
DAN WU,
G065568
Appellant,
(Super. Ct. No. 24D000937)
v.
OPINION
JOHN CHYCZEWSKI,
Respondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County,
Mary Kreber Varipapa, Judge. Dismissed.
Dan Wu, in pro. per., for Appellant.
No appearance for Respondent.
* * *
This is an appeal from a judgment of contempt against appellant
Dan Wu, the wife in this marital dissolution action. Wu was held in contempt
because she transferred community funds into a foreign bank account
controlled by her mother in violation of automatic family law restraining
orders. She was sentenced to 300 hours of community service and 10 days in
county jail. The jail sentence was stayed, to be imposed if Wu failed to
complete her community service.
We dismiss her appeal. Wu’s notice of appeal specified the appeal
was taken from the “Contempt judgment and sentencing order.” However,
Code of Civil Procedure section 904.1, subdivision (a)(1) permits an appeal
from a final judgment “except . . . a judgment of contempt . . . .” (Italics
added.) “A judgment of contempt is not appealable. [Citations.] The proper
method to challenge a contempt order is to seek extraordinary writ relief,
either through a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, certiorari, or
prohibition.” (In re M.R. (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 49, 64–65.) We do not have
jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a nonappealable order. (Griset v. Fair
Political Practices Com. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 688, 696.)
In her brief, Wu also purports to challenge certain custody orders
that the court made at the same hearing where it sentenced Wu on the
contempt. Specifically, the court granted Wu eight hours of professionally
monitored visitation with her minor child, which was not to be at Wu’s house,
and Wu was to speak English during the visits. We dismiss her appeal as to
those orders for two reasons.
First, she did not specify those orders in her notice of appeal.
While we generally construe a notice of appeal liberally to protect the right of
appeal, that is only true “‘where the respondent could not possibly have been
misled or prejudiced.’” (In re Joshua S. (2007) 41 Cal.4th 261, 272.) Here,
2
there is a real risk of prejudice. The notice of appeal was specific to the
contempt judgment and said nothing about custody arrangements.
Respondent chose not to appear in this appeal. Respondent may well have
chosen differently had it been clear that custody arrangements were in play.
(See Eisenberg et al., Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Appeals & Writs (The Rutter
Group 2025) ¶ 3:119.1 [“where several judgments and/or orders occurring
close in time are separately appealable (e.g., judgment and order awarding
attorney fees), each appealable judgment and order must be expressly
specified—in either a single notice of appeal or multiple notices of appeal—in
order to be reviewable on appeal.”].)
Second, and in any event, the custody orders are also not
appealable orders. The trial court was clear that the custody orders Wu
challenges were temporary orders meant to last only until an Evidence Code
section 730 custody evaluation could be completed by an expert, which was
expected within a few months. Temporary custody orders are not appealable.
(Smith v. Smith (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 1074, 1090; Lester v. Lennane (2000)
84 Cal.App.4th 536, 559; see id. at pp. 556–558 [noting temporary custody
orders are “interlocutory by definition” and holding such orders
nonappealable].)
3
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed.
SANCHEZ, ACTING P. J.
WE CONCUR:
SCOTT, J.
SERVINO, J.
4