Fraiser v. Thomas CA4/1

Filed 8/30/24 Fraiser v. Thomas CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SHAREE FRAISER, D082579

Appellant,

v. (Super. Ct. No. 22FL004123E)

DANIEL THOMAS,

Respondent.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, CJ Mody, Judge. Affirmed. Sharee Fraiser, in pro. per., for Appellant. No appearance for Respondent. I. INTRODUCTION Sharee Fraiser and Daniel Thomas share one five-year-old child, S.T. S.T. was born in California but currently lives with Thomas in Georgia. Throughout much of 2022, Frasier unsuccessfully attempted to bring a Request for Order and contempt charges against Thomas. The trial court summarized that history in its December 23, 2022 written ruling, denying an ex parte request brought by Frasier. In February 2023, Fraiser filed a

motion seeking sole legal and physical custody of S.T. to live with her in California. The court denied the request, instead awarding Thomas sole legal and physical custody. Fraiser appeals this order making two arguments:

First, the court erred in how it applied the LaMusga1 factors when ruling on her motion. Second, the trial judge exhibited bias against Frasier. Fraiser asserts these errors violated her due process rights by depriving her of a fair custody hearing. Thomas did not respond to this appeal. We conclude Fraiser forfeited these arguments because her brief fails to comply with appellate procedural rules governing citations to both law and the trial court’s record. Therefore, it is not possible to discern how Fraiser arrives at her factual and legal conclusions. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s order. II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Fraiser and Thomas were involved in a juvenile court proceeding, San Diego Superior Court case number 520104A. On January 7, 2022, the juvenile court entered a final judgment which included custody and visitation orders. The court ruled Thomas and Frasier would share joint legal custody of S.T., while Thomas would have S.T.’s sole physical custody. Further, S.T. was to reside with Thomas, allowing Fraiser structured unsupervised visitation with S.T. At that time, both parties lived in California. Once the juvenile court entered judgment in January 2022, it terminated its jurisdiction over S.T. In April 2022, Fraiser filed a petition for custody and support in family court. She also brought a motion seeking modification of the January 2022 orders, which still controlled. She requested sole legal and physical custody of S.T. with her in California. When she filed the Request for Order, Fraiser