Lopez v. Jehs CA3

Filed 4/30/14 Lopez v. Jehs CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (San Joaquin) ----

ERNESTO LOPEZ, C073365

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. FL372734)

v.

SAMANTHA JEHS,

Defendant and Appellant.

Samantha Jehs (mother) appeals from an order denying her request to relocate the parties’ minor children to Texas. Mother contends the trial court abused its discretion by refusing her request. The record, however, fails to support mother’s claim. We affirm the trial court’s order.

1

BACKGROUND Mother has elected to proceed on a clerk’s transcript. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.121.) This is referred to as a “judgment roll” appeal. (Allen v. Toten (1985) 172 Cal.App.3d 1079, 1082; Krueger v. Bank of America (1983) 145 Cal.App.3d 204, 207.) The limited record we have establishes that in November 2011, in San Joaquin County Superior Court, Ernesto Lopez (father) filed a Uniform Parentage Petition to Establish Parental Relationship. He also filed a motion seeking joint custody of the parties’ two minor children, who were then four and three years old. Mother responded, asking for blood tests to establish paternity. She also sought sole legal and physical custody of the children and an order requiring father’s parenting time be supervised. On June 26, 2012, the trial court issued an order granting sole legal and physical custody of the parties’ children to mother. Along with a holiday schedule and rules for coparenting the children, the court ordered father’s parenting time to begin with two hours every Tuesday in Edgewood Park. From there, his parenting time would increase in gradual “steps” based on the passage of time with the caveat that if father “misses two visits in any step prior to the Review Hearing, visitation shall not progress to the next step.” Pursuant to the court’s schedule, father’s parenting time would increase to overnights on September 29, 2012. The matter was then set for a review hearing on September 12, 2012. Prior to the September 12, 2012, review hearing, however, mother informed father of her intent to move to Texas for work purposes and take the children with her. At the review hearing, father objected to mother’s proposed move. Father said mother had taken the children to Texas before without telling him. He also told the court that mother was withholding the children in violation of the court’s orders. The court issued temporary orders regarding father’s parenting time, ordered the children to remain in California “pending the next hearing,” and ordered mother and her new husband to bring letters from their potential employers in Texas.