Hampton v. Aguilar CA2/4

California Court of Appeal Jul 29, 2025 No. B339090Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the trial court's order, holding that the appellant failed to preserve his claim of error regarding the denial of live testimony under Family Code section 217 because he failed to make an offer of proof or identify the substance of the testimony he intended to present.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred by denying a request for an evidentiary hearing under Family Code section 217 without making a finding of good cause on the record.
Whether the appellant preserved the issue of excluded testimony for appeal by failing to make an offer of proof or identify the substance of the testimony.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Hampton has failed to preserve any error in the exclusion of such testimony for appeal.”

“In the absence of such a showing, we can only conclude that Hampton has failed to preserve any error in the exclusion of such testimony for appeal.”

“As Hampton has not established that there was relevant live testimony to offer at the March 6 hearing, we must conclude the court did not prejudicially err in denying his request for live testimony without making a good cause finding on the record.”

Filed 7/29/25 Hampton v. Aguilar CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FOUR

DEREK HAMPTON, B339090

Petitioner and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 23WHPT00103) v.

JOSELIN AGUILAR,

Respondent.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Maria May Santos, Judge. Affirmed. Weisberg Law Group and Devin Weisberg for Petitioner and Appellant. No appearance for Respondent.

INTRODUCTION Appellant seeks to reverse a trial court’s order setting child support, arguing the court denied his request to present live testimony without making a finding of good cause on the record as required by Family Code section 217, subdivision (b).1 We affirm, concluding that appellant failed to preserve this issue for appeal or establish prejudicial error by the court below.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND This case arises from a family law petition to determine parental relationship filed by appellant Derek Hampton (Hampton). Hampton and respondent Joselin Aguilar (Aguilar) have one minor child together. On November 20, 2023, Aguilar filed a request for order seeking orders from the court on custody of their child, child support, visitation, and other matters. Though it is not clear from the record before us, it appears that the trial court scheduled the hearing on Aguilar’s request for March 6, 2024. On February 15, 2024, Hampton filed a request for an evidentiary hearing under section 217. Hampton’s request did not include a witness list or otherwise identify who he intended to call to provide live testimony. Instead, Hampton’s request only stated in general terms that he wanted the court to “receive any live testimony, competent testimony that is relevant and within the scope of the hearing schedule[d] to be heard on March 6, 2024.” A week later, Hampton filed a response to Aguilar’s request for order. In his response, Hampton stated, “I agree that guideline support should be put into place, factoring in our respective incomes and considering my three

Hampton v. Aguilar CA2/4

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

DEREK HAMPTON, B339090

JOSELIN AGUILAR,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

ZUKIN, P. J.

COLLINS, J.

TAMZARIAN, J.

AI Brief