Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

C. M v. J. L

May 7, 2013

C. M., RESPONDENT,
v.
J. L. , APPELLANT.



(Super. Ct. No. 12FL00265)

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Robie , Acting P. J.

C.M. v. J.L.

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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

Appellant J. L. (father) appeals from a court order permitting respondent C. M. (mother) to relocate to Lenexa, Kansas, with the parties' minor child (two years old at the time of trial). Father raises numerous claims of error in his appeal, none of which are supported by the record and many of which he fails to support with any meaningful analysis. Accordingly, we affirm.

BACKGROUND

Father 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 establishes that in January 2012, mother filed a petition to establish the parental relationship between father and the minor child. Along with that petition, mother sought an order from the court allowing her to move from California to Kansas with the minor child.

In April 2012, the parties entered into a stipulation and order,*fn1 agreeing to share legal and physical custody of the child "pending trial." They also agreed, among other things, that father would undergo a substance abuse evaluation with Colleen Moore, and both father and mother would submit to random drug and alcohol testing. The issue of mother relocating with the child was set for trial.

A mandatory settlement conference was scheduled for May 15, 2012; father failed to appear and a trial date was confirmed for June 15, 2012.

The parties appeared for trial on June 15, 2012. Mother was represented by counsel, father represented himself. Mother filed a motion in limine, asking the court to "preclude the admission of the family court services mediation report," on the basis that the report was inadmissible hearsay. The court granted mother's motion, witnesses were called, and evidence was taken; the court then took the matter under submission.

Several days later, the trial court issued a written decision, granting mother permission to relocate the child to Kansas. In a detailed decision, the court described the relevant evidence admitted at trial. The court noted that, according to the expert opinion of Colleen Moore, father was "marijuana and alcohol dependent." The court was "troubl[ed]" that father did not see his dependency as a serious issue but rather, saw treatment for his dependency as "hoops" he had to "jump through" to have custody of the child.

In reaching its decision, the court found mother did not resolve to move away with the child in order to lessen the child's contact with father, but so that she could work full time, attend school, and have the support of her family. The court noted mother would live with her parents and the child would attend a preschool program "that will allow him to learn and expend his high energy." The court further found ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.