(Super. Ct. No. 05FL01410)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Robie , J.
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
Donald Hughes, father, appeals from two trial court orders. The first, awards Jennifer Lozano, mother, sole legal and physical custody of the parties' three minor children, provides father with visitation and issues a Domestic Violence Protection Act*fn1 (DVPA) restraining order against father. In the second order, the trial court denied father's request to modify the child custody order, as well as his request for a DVPA restraining order against mother.
Father has elected to proceed on a clerk's transcript. (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 8.121, 8.122.) Thus, the appellate record does not include a reporter's transcript of the hearings 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 February 2005, mother filed a petition to establish paternity regarding three minor children; she named father as the respondent. Mother concurrently filed a DVPA request for a court order, seeking a restraining order against father. The parties subsequently entered into stipulated mutual conduct orders, which included agreements regarding child custody, visitation, and use of property.*fn2
On January 21, 2011, and again on February 10, 2011, father filed "Orders to Show Cause re Modification of Child Custody, Support and Visitation." On March 3, 2011, mother filed another DVPA request for a restraining order against father.
On May 20, 2011, father's motions to modify custody and support were heard along with mother's request for a DVPA restraining order; both parties represented themselves. After considering the evidence, including the testimony of witnesses, the court found father "repeatedly engaged in abuse" and granted mother's request for a DVPA restraining order.
The court then awarded sole legal and physical custody of the parties' minor children to mother. In support of its decision, the trial court found father failed to rebut the presumption under Family Code section 3044 that "an award of sole or joint physical or legal custody of a child to a person who has perpetrated domestic violence is detrimental to the best interest of the child . . . ."
The court also awarded father parenting time with two of the children on the first, third, and fifth weekends of each month from 6:00 p.m. on Fridays to 7:00 p.m. on Sundays. Father's parenting time with the middle child, who had accused father of molesting her, was suspended until that child was willing to participate. Mother was ordered to have that same child participate in counseling and to include the issue of reunifying with father as part of that counseling.
The parties each were ordered to participate in a minimum of five individual counseling sessions to address issues including anger management, domestic violence awareness, and other matters and additional sessions as deemed necessary by their respective counselors.
Following completion of individual counseling, the parties were ordered to participate in coparenting counseling. The court retained jurisdiction over child custody and visitation and ordered the parties to ...