Marriage of Sahansra CA3

Filed 12/16/13 Marriage of Sahansra CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Placer) ----

In re the Marriage of KULVINDER and HARLEEN C069686 SAHANSRA.

KULVINDER SINGH SAHANSRA, (Super. Ct. No. SDR30389)

Appellant,

v.

HARLEEN SODHI,

Respondent.

Appellant Kulvinder Singh Sahansra, an attorney proceeding in propria persona, appeals from the trial court’s order and findings in an ongoing dispute over the care and custody of his two minor children following the dissolution of his marriage to respondent Dr. Harleen Sodhi. We shall affirm the judgment. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Unfortunately, appellant in the present case has chosen to file a 46-page brief that fails to provide a coherent chronology of the dispute between appellant and respondent. Faced with this dearth of information, we shall briefly attempt to summarize the relevant facts.

1

Appellant and respondent married in 1999; the marriage terminated in 2008. The parties have two minor children. The dissolution of the parties’ marriage led to a veritable quagmire of litigation. Ultimately, appellant focuses on three stipulations he entered into in April 2010 and which he has continually challenged over the past two years. Appellant agreed to (1) a stipulation and order for modification of temporary parenting plan; (2) a stipulation regarding child support, daycare expenses, spousal support, and remaining issues of case; and (3) a stipulation regarding property issues and attorney fees. An amended statement on appeal sets forth the disputes in 2009 that preceded the stipulations. In 2010 the court found appellant in contempt of court for violating orders and placed appellant on probation for one year. In 2011 appellant filed a request for an order to show cause to set aside the three stipulations. The order to show cause also sought relief on other related matters, including custody, visitation, support, and respondent’s application for a move-away order. The court conducted numerous hearings and appointed counsel to represent the children. The court addressed appellant’s claims in a statement of decision filed September 7, 2011. Appellant argued he was subjected to undue influence, fraud, and oppression because during negotiations over the settlement of the case his children were being held hostage by virtue of the supervised visitation order. Appellant also argued respondent’s counsel would not release a lien on appellant’s property until the matter was settled to respondent’s satisfaction. The court found, pointedly, that appellant “is unable to produce evidence showing that these stipulations were the result of an undue influence that was in fact the taking of unfair advantage of another’s weakness of mind. In this case, the court cannot find evidence showing that [Appellant] was the victim of threats other than what he has concocted in his own jaundiced viewpoint of his view or version of fact. The court