Filed 7/27/26 Huang v. Pabianova CA2/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
FANG HUANG, B331173, B332791
Plaintiff and Respondent,
(Los Angeles County
v. Super. Ct. No.
BD615033)
MARIE PABIANOVA,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County. Michael R. Powell, Judge. Affirmed.
Maria Pabianova, in pro. per. for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
__________________________________________
This is the fourth time an appeal arising from a former
husband and wife’s dissolution of marriage has come before us.
Representing herself, wife appeals from the judgment,
challenging the family court’s postjudgment orders (1) imposing
monetary sanctions against her under Family Code sections
6344, 271, and 3027.1;1and (2) granting husband’s request that
wife’s visits with their children be monitored for several months.
We affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
A. Marriage and Dissolution
Fang Huang (husband) and Marie Pabianova (wife)
married in January 2010. They separated in October 2014, and
the judgment of dissolution ending their marriage was entered in
January 2018. (Huang v. Pabianova (May 28, 2024, B321951)
[nonpub. opn.].) In their stipulated judgment of dissolution,
husband and wife agreed to joint legal and physical custody of
their two minor children. (Ibid.)
B. Prior Appeals
In September 2022, this court affirmed the family court’s
order denying husband’s requests to modify his child support
payments to “zero” dollars. (In re Marriage of Huang and
Pabianova (Sept. 26, 2022, B316284) [nonpub. opn.].)
In October 2022, we affirmed the family court’s ruling
adjudicating the amount of child support arrears husband owed
wife from 2018 to 2019. (In re Marriage of Huang and Pabianova
(Oct. 27, 2022, B317887) [nonpub. opn.].)
1 Statutory references are to the Family Code unless
otherwise indicated.
2
In May 2024, this court affirmed the family court’s order
granting husband’s request for a domestic violence restraining
order (DVRO) against wife to protect himself and the children
and denying wife’s DVRO request against husband. (Huang v.
Pabianova, supra, B321951.) We also affirmed the court’s order
that sole legal and physical custody of the children be granted to
husband. (Ibid.)
In our opinion, we noted the family court found wife had
abused husband through her children and had abused her
children by compelling them to falsely report husband as an
abuser to authorities. (Huang v. Pabianova, supra, B321951.) In
so finding, the family court expressly discounted wife’s testimony
as lacking credibility. (Ibid.)
C. June 1, 2023 Orders Imposing Sanctions
Following the ruling on the dueling DVRO requests,
husband sought statutory awards of attorney fees as sanctions.2
At the June 6, 2023 evidentiary hearing, the parties were each
represented by counsel. After argument by counsel, the family
court granted husband’s requests and ordered wife to pay
husband sanctions totaling $25,000.
D. June 23, 2023 Order Modifying Visitation
At a hearing on June 23, 2023, the family court granted
husband’s request to modify wife’s visitation by having it
professionally monitored. The court ordered “professionally
monitored visits” to occur “for a period of 3 months” to be paid by
wife. The professional monitor was to be selected by wife with
2 The amount of monetary sanctions that husband sought is
unknown. His written requests for sanctions are not part of the
record on appeal.
3
husband’s approval. The parties were to discuss “possibly having
a non-professional monitor and an overnight monitor.” The court
set a hearing date of September 29, 2023, to review the status of
wife’s monitored visits.
E. Instant Appeal
Representing herself, wife appeals from “Judgment after
court trial” in this case. 3 In her opening brief and other
documents filed with this court, wife specifically contests the
June 1, 2023 imposition of sanctions against her and the June 23,
2023 requirement that her visitation be professionally
monitored.4
Husband has made no appearance on appeal.
DISCUSSION
I. June 1, 2023 Orders Imposing Sanctions
A. Appealability
As stated, the family court ordered wife to pay certain
statutory attorney fees as sanctions. They consisted of $20,000 to
husband as the prevailing party under section 6344 pursuant to
the Domestic Violence Prevention Act; $2,500 in attorney fees as
3 Acting in propria persona, wife filed identical notices of
appeal and nearly identical opening briefs in appeals B332791
and B331173. We have consolidated these two appeals.
4 We decline to address wife’s arguments on appeal relating
to the family court’s rulings on the dueling DVRO requests,
which we affirmed on appeal (see Santa Clarita Organization for
Planning the Environment v. County of Los Angeles (2007) 157
Cal.App.4th 149, 156 [law of the case]). We also decline to
consider wife’s claims of husband’s alleged failures to comply
with certain discovery, child support, and vocational evaluation
orders, which are the province of the family court.
4
sanctions under section 271 for frustrating settlement efforts and
needlessly increasing litigation costs; and $2,500 in sanctions
under section 3027.1 for making false accusations of child abuse
against husband.
The orders are appealable. The Family Code section 6344
order is appealable according to Code of Civil Procedure section
904.1(a)(12) because the monetary award exceeds $5,000. The
Family Code section 271 and section 3027.1 orders, which are
each in an amount of less than $5,000, are also reviewable on
appeal from the final judgment of dissolution. (See Code Civ.
Proc., § 904.1(b).) Further, because the family court here ordered
that wife owed specified sums, that order is appealable even
though some issues were continued to the next hearing. (Cf. City
and County of San Francisco v. Stanley (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th
1724, 1727 [postjudgment order modifying child support directly
appealable].)
B. Governing Law
The standard of review for orders granting or denying a
motion for attorney fees under the Family Code is abuse of
discretion. (In re Marriage of Turkanis & Price (2013) 213
Cal.App.4th 332, 345.) The family court’s “ ‘order will be upheld
on appeal unless the reviewing court, “considering all of the
evidence viewed most favorably in its support and indulging all
reasonable inferences in its favor, no judge could reasonably
make the order.” ’ ” (Sagonowsky v. Kekoa (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th
1142, 1152.)
Wife is not contending that the statutes relied upon by the
family court to sanction her are inapplicable in this instance or
that the imposition of sanctions against her is factually without
merit. Instead, wife argues her financial circumstances made the
5
imposition of sanctions unjust. Section 270 provides that “[i]f a
court orders a party to pay attorney’s fees or costs under this
code, the court shall first determine that the party has or is
reasonably likely to have the ability to pay.” Wife argues the
court erred by finding she had the ability to pay the sanctions
awarded.
Section 6344 provides: “Before a court awards attorney’s
fees and costs pursuant to this section, the court shall first
determine pursuant to Section 270 that the party ordered to pay
has, or is reasonably likely to have, the ability to pay.” (§ 6344,
subd. (c).) Section 271 allows for an award of attorney fees as a
sanction unless it “imposes an unreasonable financial burden on
the party against whom the sanction is imposed.” (§ 271, subd.
(a).) Section 3027.1 states “the court may impose reasonable
money sanctions, not to exceed all costs incurred by the party
accused as a direct result of defending the accusation, and
reasonable attorney’s fees incurred in recovering the sanctions,
against the person making the accusation.” (§ 3027.1, subd. (a).)
C. June 1, 2023 Hearing
At the June 1, 2023 hearing, the family court stated it had
reviewed wife’s previously submitted financial documents that
reflected her income and expenses. The court advised husband
that apparently, based on those documents, “there’s not an ability
[for wife] to pay” the requested sanctions “because her expenses
right now seem to be in excess of what she makes.”5 The court
explained wife’s documents showed her gross monthly income
5 While the amount of husband’s requested sanctions is
unknown, we note the family court commented that husband was
seeking a total award that exceeded $38,447.
6
was approximately $3,800 and her rent alone was around $3,000.
Wife was left with just about $800 to pay for food, healthcare,
utilities, car maintenance, and anything else.
In response, husband testified that wife had been receiving
financial support from relatives abroad throughout the
proceedings. Wife had omitted this source of income in her filed
financial documents. Husband insisted this undisclosed income
enabled wife to continuously retain new counsel to fund new
litigation against him.
The family court then questioned wife at length to
ascertain her ability to pay. Wife testified she currently had
$70,000 in credit card debt after paying several different
attorneys, including an appellate attorney, during these
proceedings. All these credit cards were either “halfway” or “all
very close to [being] maxed out,” and she was making minimum
payments on each one. Wife also testified her monthly expenses
were approximately $4,678 and her net monthly income was
approximately $3,100.
After questioning wife, the family court expressed doubt
that she had truthfully represented her income and expenses.
“She’s got expenses that she is paying for that she cannot pay
based on her gross income. She has just hired counsel for an
appeal for this action. And I have grave concerns that I’m getting
accurate reporting about her ability to pay given the fact that she
is spending all of this money while earning practically nothing.”
After further questioning wife and listening to counsels’
arguments, the family court granted husband’s request for
sanctions. The court found, pursuant to section 270, that wife
had the ability to pay sanctions of $20,000 under section 6344,
$2,500 under section 271, and $2,500 under section 3027.1.
7
The family court explained its decision: “The court has
grave concerns about whether or not the income and expense
declaration is accurate. Given the fact that there is [sic] stocks
and other assets in the amount of $6,566. And at the time, cash
on hand of $9,942.50. And there appear to be expenses way in
excess of that amount that [wife] continues to hire counsel.
Albeit, she is saying that she is putting it on credit cards. The
court finds it almost implausible she is able to make any other
payments on these expenses on income of $3,100. [¶] And she
has rent of $3,333. The math doesn’t add up.”
On this record the family court did not abuse its discretion
by awarding sanctions totaling $25,000, less than husband
requested. We must defer to the court’s determinations of
credibility. (Santa Clara County Correctional Peace Officers’
Assn., Inc. v. County of Santa Clara (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 1016,
1027.) Here, wife’s testimony clearly led the court to discount the
veracity and/or completeness of her financial documents.
Because these documents were not credible evidence that wife
neither had nor was not reasonably likely to have the ability to
pay, the order is affirmed.
Finally, wife’s attacks on the written July 25, 2023 order
after hearing as the product of an unethical opposing counsel and
incompetent judge are completely devoid of merit.
II. June 23, 2023 Order Modifying Visitation
By its terms the June 23, 2023 order was an interim order.
According to the minute order, wife’s visitation of the children
was modified to require professional monitoring “for a period of 3
months” or until September 29, 2023, when a hearing on the
“Status of Monitored Visits” was to be held. As an interim order,
the June 23, 2023 order was nonappealable. (See, e.g., Banning
8
v. Newdow (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 438, 457 [interim custody
order was nonappealable].)
DISPOSITION
The June 1, 2023 order is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
LUI, P. J.
We concur:
CHAVEZ, J.
GOORVITCH, J.
9
