Sisti v. Callahan CA4/1

Filed 3/3/26 Sisti v. Callahan CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL JOHN SISTI, D085879

Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 21FL009420S) v.

ERIN CALLAHAN,

Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, James T. Atkins, Judge. Affirmed. Erin Callahan, in pro per, for Appellant. No appearance for Respondent. Erin Callahan, who is self-represented on appeal, challenges the family court’s order denying her request for an evidentiary hearing on her petition to modify the court’s custody and visitation orders in the case involving her minor child. She also challenges other alleged errors of the court. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Callahan and Michael Sisti lived together for several years and are the parents of one child, a minor (daughter). The couple separated in 2021, and in August of that year Sisti, filed a petition for custody and support of daughter.

On July 26, 2024, the court granted sole legal and physical custody of daughter to Sisti and ordered supervised visitation for Callahan of up to six hours per week, with no visit lasting longer than three hours. Further, the court adopted the recommendations of the Family Court Services mediator as the order of the court, including the mediator’s recommendation that before Callahan could progress to unsupervised visitation, she would need to show “consistent visitation, positive feedback provided by the professional supervisor supervising the visits, input provided by the conjoint therapist and the mother’s individual therapist indicating progress on the issues previously ordered by the Court to be addressed, and positive and cordial interactions between the parents.” On November 25, 2024, Callahan filed a Request for Order (RFO) seeking a change in child custody and visitation orders. She requested that she have physical custody of her daughter from Thursdays after school until Monday morning. She also requested an evidentiary hearing “to hear from child forensic psychologist regarding the mental health of the child” and further requested a “diagnostic assessment” for daughter, with each parent to select someone to conduct the assessment, with results to be presented at the evidentiary hearing. She attached a declaration to her RFO, asserting that a forensic psychologist (unnamed) had reviewed the case and opined that it was vital for daughter’s mental health “to be reunited with me expeditiously.” Sisti filed an opposition to the RFO, asking that the current orders remain in effect. The court held a hearing on February 11, 2025. At the hearing, Callahan requested an evidentiary hearing, asserting that there were disputed issues of fact, “especially with regard to” the report of minor’s counsel. Specifically, Callahan requested that the conjoint therapist testify.