N.A. v. L.S. CA3

Filed 5/8/25 N.A. v. L.S. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (San Joaquin) ----

N.A., C099383

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. STAFLPAT20090009265) v.

L.S. et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

N.A. appeals from an order awarding primary physical custody of his son, J., to K.S. and S.S., J.’s maternal grandparents (grandparents). This is N.A.’s second appeal concerning physical custody of J. In the first appeal, a different panel of this court ruled in a December 2022 unpublished opinion (2022 opinion)1 that the trial court prejudicially erred when it awarded primary physical custody to the grandparents without first making

1 On our own motion, we take judicial notice of that unpublished opinion. (Evid. Code, §§ 452, subd. (d), 459, subd. (a).)

1

a specific finding that an award of primary physical custody to N.A. would be detrimental to J. (See N.A. v. L.S. (Dec. 27, 2022, C095047) [nonpub. opn.].) The panel reversed the trial court’s order and remanded for issuance of a new order under the proper analytical framework. On remand, the trial court issued an order awarding primary physical custody to the grandparents. N.A. contends the trial court erred again. We affirm. BACKGROUND We rely on the 2022 opinion for much of the factual and procedural background recited herein. In 2014, the trial court issued an order awarding joint custody of J. evenly between N.A. and the grandparents. In 2020, the grandparents filed a request for an order modifying custody and N.A. filed his own request for an order awarding him primary legal and physical custody of J. In June 2021, the trial court conducted a bench trial on the parties’ requests for modification. The parties stipulated to admission of each side’s exhibits, the trial court took judicial notice of the entire file, and numerous witnesses testified, including N.A. and the grandparents. In August 2021, the trial court issued an order after hearing, finding it was in J.’s best interest to be primarily in the custody of the grandparents. A different panel of this court reversed that order because the trial court failed to make a specific finding that an award of primary custody to N.A. would be detrimental to J. The panel agreed with N.A. that the trial court erred in ruling he had waived his right under Family Code2 section 3041 to that specific finding because he had agreed to shared custody with the grandparents in 2014.3