Marriage of Klaus and Null CA1/2

Filed 10/15/13 Marriage of Klaus and Null CA1/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

In re the Marriage of ASHLEY KLAUS and CHRISTOPHER NULL.

ASHLEY KLAUS, Appellant, A138492 v. CHRISTOPHER NULL, (San Francisco County Super. Ct. No. FDI-09-771194) Respondent.

I. INTRODUCTION Respondent, Christopher Null has moved to dismiss appellant, Ashley Klaus’s appeal of the trial court’s March 20, 2013, order on the ground that the court’s subsequent vacation of that order moots Klaus’s appeal. The motion is granted and the appeal is dismissed. Null also seeks sanctions, a request we deny. II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Null and Klaus were divorced in 2010. At the time this appeal was filed their daughter was ten and their son was six. On June 22, 2011, Null and Klaus entered into a stipulated parenting agreement. The salient features of this agreement are as follows: Null and Klaus have joint legal custody of their daughter and son and a 70-30 custody schedule. Under this schedule, the children live primarily with Null in San Francisco. They have a number of weekend

1

visits with Klaus during the school year and spend substantially all of the summer with her. Null and Klaus also agreed that if either of them moved, they would revise the agreement. In the event that, after required counseling and mediation, they were unable to agree on a revised agreement, the court would apply the “best interests of the child” standard to the manner in which the agreement would be revised. On December 14, 2012, Klaus filed a motion to revise the agreement to essentially reverse the original custody arrangement to permit the children to live with her in Oregon during the school year with weekend and summer visits with Null. Klaus also requested the appointment of a custody evaluator and an order restraining Null from moving or enrolling the children in new schools “prior to judicial decision.” On December 31, 2012, Null filed a response to Klaus’s motion, asking the court to maintain the status quo, arguing it was in the children’s best interests to do so. Null also made an additional request that the court “confirm” that he could relocate from San Francisco to Marin County. Null indicated that he would consent to the appointment of Dr. Perlmutter to conduct a “limited custody evaluation to supplement his custody- evaluation report, dated 12/23/10.” At the time, daughter was in the fifth grade and son in the second grade. Null contended that a move to Novato would place the children in better schools and would not impact Klaus’s time with the children. Klaus opposed Null’s request to move to Novato and asked the court to appoint a custody evaluator to replace Dr. Perlmutter. On February 5, 2013, the court heard Klaus and Null’s motions. Klaus represented herself; Null was represented by counsel. In an order filed March 20, 2013, the court denied Klaus’s motion based on a finding of no change in circumstances. The court also ordered Null and Klaus to complete mediation by April 5, 2013, regarding Null’s request to move to Novato. Null and Klaus were unable to resolve through mediation the issue of Null’s move to Novato.