Jones v. Thompson CA3

Filed 8/16/24 Jones v. Thompson CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Butte) ----

KAYLA NICOLE JONES, C099719

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 18PA01621)

v.

LAWRENCE THOMPSON, JR.,

Defendant and Appellant.

This is a paternity action between Kayla Nicole Jones (mother) and Lawrence Thompson, Jr. (father). On appeal, father challenges the trial court’s order granting mother sole legal custody of the parties’ minor child, and awarding father parenting time on alternating weekends. On this record, we find no error and affirm.

FACTS AND HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDINGS The limited record we have on appeal establishes that in September 2023, following several days of testimony, the trial court found father failed to put the minor

1

child’s best interests first. The court expressed “concern[]” that father was unable to coparent with mother and, instead, “leveraged the schedules and interests for the minor as a means to compel [mother] to acquiesce to what [father] desires.” This, the court concluded, created “hardships” for the minor child. Minor’s counsel also reported to the trial court that the minor child refused to discuss the time he spent in father’s care. In addition, father refused minor’s counsel access to the inside of his home. In addition, the trial court found no evidence to overcome the previously established presumption against father having custody under Family Code section 3044. Even without the Family Code section 3044 presumption, however, the court determined it “would find still, from the testimony and history of the case, that the order that is best for the minor is that the mother have sole legal custody, and that the time share for father be on alternating weekends and identified holidays, as reflected in the modified order.” Thus, with some modifications, the trial court adopted the custody recommendations made by the court-appointed mediator and awarded mother sole legal custody, awarding father parenting time on alternating weekends. Father appeals from that order; his request for a settled statement was denied because father failed to timely serve mother with father’s proposed settled statement. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.137.)