S.T. v. C.C. CA3

Filed 12/30/25 S.T. v. C.C. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Sacramento) ----

S.T., C101277

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 19FL05538)

v.

C.C.,

Defendant and Appellant.

Self-represented mother C.C. appeals a child custody order and two child support orders. Child’s father S.T. did not file a respondent’s brief, so we decide mother’s appeal based on the record, the opening brief, and any oral argument by mother. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.220(a)(2); In re Marriage of Riddle (2005) 125 Cal.App.4th 1075, 1078, fn. 1.) Because mother does not meet her burden on appeal, we affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In 2019, father filed a petition to establish parental relationship of the then three- year-old child, seeking joint custody and reasonable visitation. In response, mother

1

sought sole custody with no visitation by father. Over the next five years, the trial court issued several child custody and support orders. We limit our discussion to the three orders that mother appeals. 1. The May 2024 Child Custody Order Following a custody trial in May 2021, the court found that mother was attempting to alienate child from father. The court gave father more parenting time and the authority to decide school choice if he and mother were unable to agree. The court also prohibited “videotaping or photographing of custody exchanges without the agreement of both parents.” Nothing in the record suggests mother appealed this order (the May 2021 order). In September 2023, the court held a hearing after father requested sole custody. The court found that it was not in child’s best interest to keep the current custody order in place because child was not regularly attending school in mother’s care. The court issued an interim order giving father sole legal custody and mother regular weekends (the interim order). All previous non-conflicting orders remained in effect. Around eight months later, the court held a one-day trial to determine whether to keep the interim order in place. The court heard testimony from mother, father, maternal grandparents (grandfather and grandmother), and a child custody counselor. The child custody counselor recommended father have sole legal custody primarily because of child’s schooling. Specifically, child was a grade level behind and not attending school during mother’s parenting time. Father testified he tried to discuss school choice with mother, but she did not respond, so he disenrolled child from her existing school (first school) and enrolled her in a different school (second school). Mother testified that father carried out the disenrollment and enrollment through fraud and forgery, and she refused to aid and abet that fraud by taking child to second school. The court reviewed the purportedly fraudulent enrollment document and asked mother to identify any incorrect information. The document, an “online registration