Habib v. Abdalla CA1/1

Filed 6/25/25 Habib v. Abdalla CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE

YASMIN HABIB, Plaintiff and Appellant, A171487 v. MOHAMED ABDALLA, (Alameda County Super. Ct. No. HF18905111) Defendant and Respondent.

Plaintiff Yasmin Habib (mother) filed notices of appeal from an August 21, 2024, short form order continuing a hearing on a motion to modify child support; an August 27, 2024, minute order modifying travel restrictions for the parties’ children (minors); and a September 11, 2024, order declaring her a vexatious litigant. We affirm. BACKGROUND In May 2018, mother petitioned for dissolution of her marriage to respondent Mohamed Abdalla (father). Four years later, in July 2022, judgment of dissolution was filed. Over the ensuing years, the parties filed various requests for modification of custody and visitation orders and restraining orders. As relevant here, in July 2024, father, fearing mother “may flee with the children,” sought changes in custody orders and requested minors’

1

passports be turned over to him. Father also sought an order declaring mother a vexatious litigant. The following month, minors’ counsel filed a request to be relieved as counsel and for appointment of new counsel. Counsel cited as the reason for the request a “breakdown in attorney client/communication and interference” by mother. According to counsel, mother had “undermined” his attorney/client relationship with minors by having minors record him, despite previously telling mother not to do so and despite admonishment by the court; had not made minors available for in-person meetings; and had directed one minor to “write letters to the court, circumventing” counsel. Additionally, mother had not supported minors’ participation in therapy with father, which was a “huge problem.” Finally, although recognizing it would be “a shocking upheaval” in minors’ lives, counsel agreed with father’s request that custody be changed. Counsel also “doubt[ed] [mother or the oldest daughter] would obey such an order,” and he “suspect[ed] they might even flee the area.” The day after minors’ counsel filed his request to withdraw, father filed a request for orders for temporary emergency custody of minors, possession of the minors’ passports, and for child abduction prevention, citing mother’s lack of compliance with custody and visitation orders, that mother was facing over 30 counts of contempt of court, and minors’ counsel’s concern that mother was an “urgent flight risk.” Father requested an order preventing mother from traveling outside of the county, California, or the United States with minors without permission of the court. Father further asserted mother has family in Europe and has traveled with minors to visit family in Morocco without first informing him. Father also claimed mother had previously taken minors from Egypt without his permission when they had resided