Gonzalez v. Stanton CA1/1

Filed 7/14/25 Gonzalez v. Stanton CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

ISAAC GONZALEZ, Plaintiff and Respondent, A169385 v. MIASHA STANTON, (Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No. MSD1203291) Defendant and Appellant.

Appellant Miasha Stanton (mother) appeals, in propria persona, from an October 25, 2023, minute order maintaining current custody orders and reserving jurisdiction on the issue of parental alienation. In briefing that is largely in violation of the California Rules of Court, mother challenges the trial court’s reliance on an allegedly “unauthorized report” (capitalization omitted) to support respondent Isaac Gonzalez’s1 (father) request for an order to ascertain minor son’s preference for his living arrangements. We affirm. BACKGROUND We glean the following sequence of events from the “Case Summary” and truncated record on appeal.

1 Gonzalez is also proceeding in propria persona.

1

In September 2022, the family court ordered the parties to attend Tier II mediation2 and to return to court in February 2023. The parties attended, and the mediator prepared a report in advance of the February hearing. Mother does not state whether this report was provided to the court. In January 2023, mother requested an order for her and father’s children (minors) to see a therapist specializing in “Narcissistic Parental Alienation.” At the February “Return After Tier II Mediation” hearing, the family court appointed counsel for the parties’ son to investigate claims of parental alienation. (Capitalization omitted.) In May, the court issued another order appointing counsel and set a hearing for July. In June, father filed a request for a change in orders. Specifically, he requested an order to “ ‘Meet with [minor son] to ascertain preferences as to living arrangements.’ ” As support for his request, father attached the “Tier [II] Mediator’s report,” which was prepared in advance of the February 2023 hearing and discussed interviews with minors. In response, mother filed her own request for order, asking the court to impose sanctions for father’s alleged violation of “a court rule” (capitalization omitted) by attaching the report. The report commences with a “Notice” which reads: “No person who has access to this document shall disseminate or disclose its contents to any person no [sic] entitled to access, nor shall the parties attach such a document to any pleading in this or any other litigation