Schrader v. Watts CA2/6

Filed 8/19/25 Schrader v. Watts CA2/6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIX

ERIC SCHRADER, 2d Civ. No. B334308 (Super. Ct. No. 17FL-0248) Respondent, (San Luis Obispo County)

v.

STEPHANIE WATTS,

Appellant.

Stephanie Watts (Mother) appeals an order of the family court denying her request to modify the permanent order granting Father sole legal and physical custody. We have examined the record and conclude no abuse of discretion occurred. We will affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Original Custody and Visitation Order Mother and Father began divorce proceedings in San Luis Obispo County in 2017. Their only child, daughter S.S., was born in 2015. Mother returned to her hometown in Tulare County after the couple separated. Father remained in San Luis Obispo.

A protracted custody dispute followed, driven largely by Mother’s allegations that Father and paternal grandmother had physically and sexually abused S.S. The family court held a trial on custody and visitation over 17 days in 2022. It issued a 41-page statement of decision in November of that year. The court found Mother did not prove her allegations of abuse. “[T]he evidence supports the more likely conclusion,” it stated, “that Mother’s statements to and actions toward [S.S.] since the parties’ separation have caused [S.S.] to incorrectly report incidents of sexual and physical abuse. Mother has been persistent – in fact, relentless – in her efforts to have the court make abuse findings against Father and Father’s family members. It appears that Mother believes that Father is a risk to [S.S.], so Mother has resorted to manipulating and enlisting others – including [S.S.] – to support contrived abuse allegations so that [S.S.] will not have unsupervised time with Father. While the court may never know what occurred between Mother and [S.S.] or Father and [S.S.], Mother’s actions have severely damaged Mother’s credibility and are harmful to [S.S.]’s current and long-term well-being.” The family court entered judgment in March of 2023.1 Father received sole legal and physical custody. The court required a professional supervisor to attend Mother’s visits with S.S. It limited her contact with S.S. during non-custodial time to written, prescreened communications. It specified Mother “shall not accompany the minor child to the bathroom, [and] that [Mother] shall not look under, take off or change child’s clothes during visits.” It directed Father to ensure S.S. attended “regular