Marriage of Hernandez and Renteria CA5

Filed 3/11/25 Marriage of Hernandez and Renteria CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

In re the Marriage of ERIKA HERNANDEZ and NATHANAEL RENTERIA.

ERIKA HERNANDEZ, F088472

Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 09FS0414)

v. OPINION NATHANAEL RENTERIA,

Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Kings County. Mark Skinner, Commissioner. Nathanael Renteria, in pro. per., for Appellant. No appearance for Respondent. -ooOoo- Nathanael Renteria (father) challenges the child custody order in this family law case. The trial court essentially ordered full physical and legal custody of the children to the mother, Erika Hernandez, with limited rights of visitation to Renteria.

On appeal, Renteria generally claims the trial court was biased and partial, the proceedings did not comply with Family Code1 section 3044 relating to “domestic violence,” and the court misused certain facts. We affirm the order. BACKGROUND The record in this case begins in the midst of a family law case. In December 2023, a child custody evaluator and investigator recommended mother and father share physical and legal custody of their five children, three females and two males, then ranging in age from 8 to 17. The evaluator noted two children, the 10 and 13 year olds, favored Renteria and testified the children were safe with their father and would benefit from that relationship. The evaluator was aware of domestic violence issues and believed Renteria was “overcoming” the section 3044 presumption against custody for domestic violence offenders.2 A separate evaluator recommended sole custody with the mother.3 In May 2024, the child custody issue proceeded to formal hearing.4 During the hearing, Hernandez testified to various acts of domestic violence perpetrated by Renteria—“hitting,” “slapping,” “pulling,” “pushing,” and “a lot more.” She had also obtained a restraining order against Renteria, which she testified was violated on several occasions. Renteria disputed the violations, offering his own explanations and perspective. He also testified he lost his job due to union issues. During the proceedings, the trial court itself asked witnesses many questions. The court asked questions during both Renteria’s and Hernandez’s examinations. For