Trice-Lewis v. Superior Court CA1/2

Filed 11/25/24 Trice-Lewis v. Superior Court CA1/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

KARENA TRICE-LEWIS, A171449 Petitioner, (Contra Costa County Sup. Ct. v. No. D2200095)

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, Respondent;

CEDRIC LEWIS, Real Party in Interest.

BY THE COURT1: On October 7, 2024, petitioner filed a writ petition challenging respondent court’s August 7, 2024 Findings and Order After Hearing on the basis that respondent court failed to comply with Family Code section 3044, subdivision (f)(2), in finding that real party in interest had rebutted the presumption in section 3044, subdivision (a).

1 Before Stewart, P.J., Richman, J., and Miller, J.

1

On October 22, 2024, this court issued a “Notice of Intent to Issue Peremptory Writ in First Instance” (suggestive Palma2 notice) confirming respondent court’s apparent error in finding that real party in interest had overcome the presumption in section 3044, subdivision (a), without stating “its reasons in writing or on the record as to why paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) is satisfied and why the factors in paragraph (2) of subdivision (b), on balance, support the legislative findings in [Family Code section] 3020.” (Fam. Code § 3044, subds. (b) & (f)(2).) The suggestive Palma notice gave respondent court the power and jurisdiction “to comply with section 3044, subdivision (f)(2), by explaining, either in writing or on the record, its August 7, 2024 finding that real party in interest rebutted the presumption in section 3044, subdivision (a).” The suggestive Palma notice stated that, if respondent court complied with the notice on or before November 8, 2024, this court would dismiss the petition as moot. The notice required petitioner to file a declaration attesting to respondent court’s compliance and, in the event respondent court did not comply, invited the parties each to file a response on or before November 18, 2024. On November 7, 2024, petitioner’s counsel filed a declaration attesting that the October 31, 2024 hearing respondent court held in response to the suggestive Palma notice did not result in compliance where respondent court did not provide a “meaningful ‘opportunity to be heard’ ” and did not make specific findings on the factors in subdivisions (b)(2)(A), (b)(2)(B), (b)(2)(E), and (b)(2)(G) of section 3044 in its modified ruling. On November 18, 2024, petitioner filed her response to the suggestive Palma notice, reiterating that respondent court’s did not comply and asking this court to issue a peremptory