Marriage of Young CA2/6

Filed 7/23/13 Marriage of Young 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

In re Marriage of DEBBARA and JOSEPH 2d Civil No. B234768 YOUNG. (Super. Ct. No. PD037134) (Los Angeles County)

DEBBARA GIPSON-YOUNG,

Respondent,

v.

JOSEPH YOUNG,

Appellant.

Following four years of active litigation, the trial court dissolved the marriage of Joseph Young and Debbara Gipson-Young, and awarded Debbara sole physical custody of the couple's two minor children subject to supervised visits by Joseph. 1 The court also imposed $120,000 in sanctions against Joseph under Family Code sections 2107, subdivision (c), and 271.2 Joseph appeals the custody and visitation

1 For ease of reference, we refer to the parties by their first names. We intend no disrespect. 2 Unless otherwise indicated, all statutory references are to the Family Code.

ruling, as well as the sanctions order. We conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion, and affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Joseph and Debbara were married for nearly 20 years. They had four children, two of whom were minors when Joseph and Debbara separated. A. Child Custody and Visitation Joseph and Debbara settled the issues of custody and visitation. Under their settlement, the couple shared joint legal custody of their minor children, but Debbara was to have primary physical custody. Joseph would have the children for six hours each weekend and for a weekly three-hour weeknight visit. The parties further agreed that Joseph's weekend custody would convert to overnight visits three months later. Just after the overnight visits were to start, Joseph asked the trial court to give him sole physical custody and to hold Debbara in contempt for denying him his visitation rights under the settlement. Debbara opposed Joseph's motion and requested that his visits be supervised because Joseph had been swearing at the children and because the children felt unsafe around him. Following a hearing, the court declined to find Debbara in contempt. Before the court ruled on Joseph's pending motion to modify custody, Debbara sought a temporary restraining order (TRO) barring any overnight visits and requiring all other visits to be supervised. Debbara alleged that Joseph had been "verbally abusive" and "physically rough" with the children, who feared him. The court granted the TRO. After a further hearing, the court denied Joseph's request to award him sole physical custody. The court found a "significant change of circumstance" since the parties' settlement, but one that favored Debbara—not Joseph. The court credited Debbara's testimony that the children were afraid of Joseph. The court consequently found it "impractical" to have the children live with Joseph and appropriate to order supervised visits.