Marriage of Hite CA2/6
Filed 12/3/25 Marriage of Hite CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
In re Marriage of SEAN HITE 2d Civ. No. B336357 and KAITLIN HITE. (Super. Ct. No. 22FL01889) (Santa Barbara County)
SEAN HITE,
Appellant,
v.
KAITLIN HITE,
Respondent.
Sean Hite (Husband) appeals from a judgment in a marital dissolution case denying custody and visitation to his son, H.H. We affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In 2022, Husband filed for divorce from Kaitlin Hite (Wife). They have two minor sons. When Husband filed his petition, H.H. was nine years old and W.H. was four years old. In January 2024, the trial court held a two-day evidentiary
hearing. Wife testified about two incidents where Husband unexpectedly arrived to take H.H. to school in the morning. In the first incident, H.H. became tearful and told Wife he did not want to go to school with Husband. Husband became aggressive and told H.H., “[Y]ou are coming with me.” The next day, H.H. again cried and stated he did not want Husband to take him to school. Husband put his body in between Wife and H.H., told Wife to “shut up,” took H.H. by his shoulders, and aggressively pulled him into the car. H.H. was “kicking and hitting [and] trying to get away,” and Husband “laid his body on top of [H.H.] to hold him in [the car] and put him in the seat belt and close the door.” Wife tried to calm H.H. through the window, and Husband yelled at her to “get away from the car” and told the children, “[M]om caused this.” H.H. testified the incident “scared” him. The trial court appointed therapist Leslie Anderson to work with the parties. Husband was encouraged “to cooperate with, and participate in, Ms. Anderson’s efforts to improve his relationship with his son.” Anderson later testified that Husband canceled at least three therapy sessions with her, and that she “never had . . . to deal with” a parent as “uncooperative” as Husband in helping H.H. overcome his fear of Husband. On the second day of the evidentiary hearing, the parties reached a partial settlement. The parties agreed to child support terms based on a custody arrangement where Husband had no custody of or visitation with H.H., and where Husband and Wife shared joint custody of W.H. The parties waived spousal support and dropped their respective requests for sanctions and attorney’s fees. Husband agreed to these terms in open court. The trial court ordered that Wife would have legal and physical
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)