Lotito-Hengl v. Davies-Calagna CA3

Filed 8/11/25 Lotito-Hengl v. Davies-Calagna CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Placer) ----

STEPHANIE NICOLE LOTITO-HENGL, C100828

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. SDR0048240)

v.

NICHOLAS ANTONE DAVIES-CALAGNA,

Defendant and Appellant;

PLACER COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES,

Respondent.

Appellant Nicholas Antone Davies-Calagna appeals the trial court’s child support and child custody orders involving his son and his former partner respondent Stephanie Nicole Lotito-Hengl. We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The trial court certified a settled statement explaining appellant and respondent had one child together, born in 2014. The parties also had children through other

1

relationships and were married to other people at the time of this case. The court held an evidentiary hearing on child custody over several days in March and June 2023. After the matter was taken under submission but before the court issued its order “[a]ppellant was arrested for felony domestic violence charges in Sacramento County.” The court held a reopened hearing in November 2023 and March 2024. The settled statement summarized the witnesses who testified at the custody hearings regarding the parties’ history, care of the parties’ child, and care of their other children. Appellant testified at the reopened hearing and “admitted to domestic violence[,] stating he’s ‘done a DV’ with his wife for which he served 45 days in jail.” The trial court filed a statement of decision for custody on May 13, 2024. The decision stated the court found, “[T]he credible evidence at trial establishes that [appellant] was arrested for domestic violence in June 2023 against his current wife. [Appellant] readily admits that he was arrested and admits that he was convicted of Penal Code [section] 245[, subdivision (a)(1)], [a]ssault with a [d]eadly [w]eapon or [f]orce [l]ikely to [p]roduce [g]reat [b]odily [i]njury, a felony.” The court, however, acknowledged “[appellant’s] concerns about previous domestic violence in [respondent’s] home [were] reasonable given the evidence produced at trial from [respondent’s husband] and [respondent],” so there was “potential for [the child] to witness domestic violence in [respondent’s] home.” But “Family Code [section] 3044 applie[d] to [appellant] as he was convicted of a felony count of Penal Code section 245[, subdivision ](a)(1),” and this conviction “is a domestic violence crime pursuant to Family Code [section] 3044[, subdivision ](c) as the crime involves a conviction for placing a person in reasonable apprehension of imminent serious bodily injury.” The court then listed items that could later overcome the rebuttable presumption of Family Code1