T.W. v. S.W. CA2/5

Filed 2/4/26 T.W. v. S.W. CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE

T.W., B347666

Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. v. 19STPT00215)

S.W.,

Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Anne Kiley, Judge. Dismissed.

S.W., in pro. per, for Appellant.

No appearance for Respondent.

******

S.W. appeals the trial court’s order striking her motion to disqualify the trial judge for cause. Because such an order may only be reviewed by petition for a writ of mandate filed 10 days after the order issued (Code Civ. Proc., § 170.3, subd. (d)), 1 we lack jurisdiction to hear S.W.’s appeal. We accordingly dismiss. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND T.W. and S.W. have one child together, born in 2018. In January 2019, T.W. (the father) petitioned to establish his paternity as well as custody rights to the child. Over the ensuing years, the trial court promulgated temporary orders on child custody and visitation. The court set a half-day trial for May 21, 2025, with an eye toward issuing final orders on these matters. On the day set for trial, the court placed T.W. and S.W.— both of whom are self-represented litigants—under oath, and they disagreed over nearly every factual question raised, such as the terms of a temporary custody order, whether their child was diagnosed with autism, and whether S.W. had brought the child to school late. The trial court observed that this was a “high conflict case,” that the parents “wish[ed] to attack each other” repeatedly, and that it was “one of the most dysfunctional situations” the court had “ever seen in this courtroom.” The court accordingly proposed conducting a “parenting plan assessment” before issuing any final custody orders, and continued the trial to August 2025. Throughout the hearing, whenever the trial court did not rule as S.W. requested, S.W. complained that she felt “like [she was] not being heard” and that she was not “getting a fair shake.”