Williams v. Cavers CA6

Filed 1/28/14 Williams v. Cavers CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

AVIS WILLIAMS, H038446 (Santa Cruz County Respondent, Super. Ct. No. PA004885)

v.

BRYANT CAVERS,

Appellant.

Bryant L. Cavers (Father) appeals from a May 2012 order awarding physical custody of his child to her mother, Avis L. Williams (Mother). Because the child turned 18 in February 2013, the order Father challenges is moot. We will therefore dismiss the appeal. I. TRIAL COURT AND WRIT PROCEEDINGS In January 2012, Mother petitioned the court for custody of her then 17-year-old daughter who had been living with Father since 2006. Father opposed the custody change, and the parties were unsuccessful at mediating a custody plan for their child. The mediator met with the parents and the child, and he received detailed voice messages from the child’s therapist in response to inquiries concerning emotional stability, on- going treatment, and medication. The mediator prepared a recommendation for the court pursuant to Family Code section 3183, subdivision (a) and California Rules of Court, rule 210(e)(8)(A). He recommended that a change of residence from Father’s Oakland home to Mother’s Santa Cruz home occur at the end of the 2011-2012 school year. The Court

e-mailed the mediator’s recommendation to the parties on April 6 in preparation for an April 9 hearing. At the hearing, Father objected to receiving the recommendation only three days before the hearing.1 He also objected because the mediator had not spoken directly with the child’s therapist. Father further informed the court that the child was seeing a psychotherapist and taking psychotropic medication, and he asked the court to take judicial notice of an April 2008 letter containing a therapist’s treatment summary. The court continued the matter to May 2 to allow the mediator to contact the child’s therapist and augment his recommendation. On April 12 Father submitted a “letter brief” to the trial court objecting to the mediator’s recommendation and pressing why the child should remain with him. At the May 2 hearing, the court adopted the mediator’s unchanged recommendation and modified custody accordingly. On May 9 Father wrote to the court objecting again to the mediator’s recommendation, and on June 13 he filed an ex parte motion for reconsideration. That same day the court denied Father’s motion without prejudice to refiling the request as a regularly noticed motion using Judicial Council forms. The court also filed its Findings and Order After Hearing (from May 2) adopting the mediator’s recommendation in full. On June 14 Father, in pro per, filed a notice of appeal. In August 2012 and February 2013 this court denied Father’s petitions for emergency stays and writs of supersedeas. Father filed an opening brief in January 2013 challenging the trial court’s custody modification order, and in November 2013 he responded to this court’s request for supplemental briefing on whether the appeal is moot. Mother has not participated in the appeal.