legal news


Register | Forgot Password

Infanzon v. Cardenaz
On appeal, Jose contends that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his request for a continuance of the hearing on the custody issue and Ana's move-away request. Jose had requested a continuance because the expert whom the court appointed under Evidence Code section 730 to offer recommendations to the court regarding custody, would be unavailable to testify at the hearing. Prior to receiving a summons to appear, the expert had made vacation plans and would be out of the country at the time of the hearing. According to Jose, he was denied a meaningful hearing because rather than having the expert testify in court, the court allowed in evidence the expert's report and the transcript of her deposition testimony. Jose maintains that as a result of proceeding in this manner, the court was unable to judge the expert's credibility.

Search thread for
Download thread as



Quick Reply

Your Name:
Your Comment:

smiling face wink grin cool nod sticking out tongue raised eyebrow confused shocked shaking head disapproval rolling eyes sad mad

Click an emoji to insert it into your message. You may use BB Codes in your message.
Spam Prevention:

    Home | About Us | Privacy | Subscribe
    © 2025 Fearnotlaw.com The california lawyer directory

  Copyright © 2025 Result Oriented Marketing, Inc.

attorney
scale