Marriage of Johnson CA5

Filed 9/19/25 Marriage of Johnson CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

In re the Marriage of DWIGHT JOHNSON and TINA FRAZIER JOHNSON.

DWIGHT JOHNSON, F089046

Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. S1501FL628974)

v. OPINION TINA FRAZIER JOHNSON,

Respondent.

THE COURT* APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Kern County. Donald Bryson Griffith, Judge. Dwight Johnson, in pro. per., for Appellant. No appearance by Respondent. -ooOoo- This is a family law case which has its genesis in Dwight Johnson’s (father) June 2014 petition for dissolution of his marriage to Tina Frazier Johnson (mother). After a judgment of dissolution was entered in September 2018, and custody orders concerning the

* Before Franson, Acting P. J., Snauffer, J. and DeSantos, J.

couple’s three children were issued, the children became subjects of a juvenile dependency case in another county. Ultimately, the juvenile court dismissed the dependency case and issued exit orders. Thereafter, father filed a petition in the family law case to modify the custody order and transfer the family law case to the children’s purported Indian tribe under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.). The family court denied the request to transfer the case, finding ICWA did not apply to these proceedings. Father appealed that finding and we affirmed the family court’s decision in an unpublished decision, In re Marriage of Johnson (Jan. 27, 2025, F086965). During the pendency of that appeal, father filed a request for an order of genetic testing under Family Code sections 7550 and 7551.1 “[A]n order for genetic testing is mandatory when the following elements are met: (1) there is a civil proceeding; (2) wherein parentage is a relevant fact; (3) a timely motion for genetic testing has been filed; (4) by a party; and (5) the testing would be for the child, mother, and alleged father.” (County of Riverside v. Estabrook (2019) 30 Cal.App.5th 1144, 1150.) Father’s request for genetic testing did not explain why he waited so long to bring the request or why parentage is relevant at this point in the proceedings. At a November 1, 2024 hearing, the family court found father had not met his burden and denied his request.