Enriquez v. Sholokhova CA1/5

Filed 11/25/24 Enriquez v. Sholokhova CA1/5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE

VICTOR DAVID FLORES ENRIQUEZ, Plaintiff and Appellant, A168444

v. (San Mateo County YELENA SHOLOKHOVA, Super. Ct. No. 19-FAM-01592-B) Defendant and Respondent.

In this parentage action, Victor David Flores Enriquez seeks to appeal from temporary custody orders and a child support order. Because the orders are not appealable, we dismiss his appeal.

BACKGROUND Enriquez and respondent Yelena Sholokhova have a minor child together. In January 2023, Sholokhova obtained an ex parte temporary emergency order granting her sole physical and legal custody of the child and terminating visitation between Enriquez and the child. The ex parte order was based on Sholokhova’s allegation that Enriquez had abducted the child by taking the child to Mexico. At subsequent hearings on March 6, 2023, and April 24, 2023, the trial court continued the temporary

1

order granting sole custody of the child to Sholokhova with no visitation for Enriquez.

At the April 24, 2023 hearing, Enriquez informed the court that he “would like to postpone this case . . . [while] maintaining the emergency orders that were issued,” pending the resolution of criminal charges against him. Based on Enriquez’s agreement to maintain the existing temporary custody order, the court awarded Sholokhova sole legal and physical custody of the child with no visitation to father. The court made clear that “these are not permanent orders” and “[t]hey are not final.” The court also ordered that Sholokhova’s counsel draft the findings and order after the hearing for the court’s review. Our record does not include the signed findings and order pertaining to the April 24, 2023 hearing.