A.D. v. B.G. CA2/6

California Court of Appeal Jan 27, 2025 No. B335061Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the family court's order granting the father sole legal and physical custody, finding that the domestic violence presumption under Family Code section 3044 did not apply and that substantial evidence supported the modification.

Issues

Whether the family court erred by failing to apply the Family Code section 3044 presumption against awarding custody to a parent who has committed domestic violence.
Whether the family court erred by modifying a prior custody order without sufficient evidence of changed circumstances.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The family court considered these declarations along with testimony from the mediator and Mother at the evidentiary hearing. It found the mediator’s testimony credible and Mother’s testimony not credible.”

Filed 1/27/25 A.D. v. B.G. CA2/6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

A.D., 2d Civ. No. B335061 (Super. Ct. No. D376245) Respondent, (Santa Barbara County)

B.G.,

Appellant.

B.G. (Mother) appeals an order giving A.D. (Father) sole legal and physical custody of their minor daughter, A.D. She contends the family court erred by: (1) failing to apply Family Code1 section 3044’s presumption against awarding custody to a parent found to have perpetrated domestic violence; and (2) modifying the parties’ existing custody order without sufficient evidence of changed circumstances. We will affirm.

1 Further unspecified statutory references are to the Family

Code.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND A.D. was born in 2015. Father filed this parentage case in May of 2016 after his relationship with Mother ended. They never married. A.D. resided with Mother in Lancaster and would visit Father, who lived in Oak Park. They stipulated to joint legal and physical custody in September of 2016. The Los Angeles Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) detained A.D. in 2018 following allegations of physical abuse by Father’s then-girlfriend (the DCFS case).2 The juvenile court in Los Angeles entered a “Custody Order-Juvenile- Final Judgment” in February 2019 awarding Mother sole physical custody and ordering Father to attend parenting classes.3 They continued to share legal custody. Father moved to Colorado in March of 2021 and visited A.D. monthly. A.D. began first grade in August of 2021. She struggled with attendance. Mother and Father agreed to move A.D. from Lancaster to Oak Park in February of 2022 so she could live with Father’s parents. She finished first grade at Brookside Elementary School. Father returned from Colorado in August of 2022 and moved into his parents’ house with A.D. A.D. began second grade at Brookside. Mother withdrew her mid-year from school and relocated her to Lancaster. A.D. again struggled. She returned to live with Father and his

A.D. v. B.G. CA2/6

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

CODY, J.

BALTODANO, J.

AI Brief