Marriage of Cheung and Mak CA1/5

Filed 5/14/14 Marriage of Cheung and Mak CA1/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE

In re the Marriage of WENDY CHEUNG and ROLLAND MAK.

WENDY CHEUNG, Respondent, A139256 v. (San Mateo County ROLLAND MAK, Super. Ct. No. FAM0108668) Appellant.

Appellant Rolland Mak appeals from an order regarding child custody, visitation rights, and payment for costs relating to court-ordered therapy. We affirm. BACKGROUND Our opinion from a previous appeal in this case recounted the following relevant background: “In earlier proceedings, the marriage of Mak and respondent Wendy Cheung was formally terminated, custody of their child was awarded to Cheung, and Mak was granted certain visitation rights. Judgment issued in April 2011. [¶] In 2011, the child (then 11 years old) stopped attending the visitation sessions because the child no longer wanted to see Mak. In December 2011, the trial court appointed a reunification therapist for the child to determine whether it would be in the best interest of the child to engage in reunification with Mak at that time. The December 2011 order provided for Mak to pay the full cost of the reunification therapy. Mak paid for some, but not all, of the therapy

1

costs; the unpaid amount was $720.” (In re Marriage of Cheung and Mak (Dec. 12, 2013, A138276) [nonpub. opn.].) In December 2012, Mak filed a motion to modify custody and visitation arrangements, and to modify the order requiring Mak to pay the reunification therapist’s costs to provide the cost be shared between Mak and Cheung. In May 2013, the trial court held a one day trial on Mak’s motion. According to the docket, 10 witnesses testified at this trial, including Mak and Cheung. The trial court issued a written decision awarding Cheung sole legal and physical custody of the child. The decision grants Mak access to certain records regarding the child but prohibits him from contacting the child, finding “it is in the best interest of the minor to have a break from litigation and from therapy and from the pressures placed upon him by both parents regarding his time with [Mak].” The decision directs an appointment with the reunification therapist be made to determine whether reunification efforts should proceed at this time, and directs Mak and Cheung to comply with the therapist’s recommendation. The decision further directs Mak to pay the balance of the therapist’s unpaid bill for prior sessions, and to pay in advance for future sessions. DISCUSSION Mak challenges whether the trial court had a proper basis in the May 2013 order to (1) award custody to Cheung, (2) temporarily prohibit Mak’s contact with the child, (3) select the designated reunification therapist, and (4) order Mak to pay the balance of the unpaid therapy bills. Mak also asserts the trial court exhibited bias. Cheung did not file a response brief. Mak elected to proceed on appeal without a reporter’s transcript, agreed statement, or settled statement of the May 2013 trial. Instead, he designated solely a partial clerk’s transcript, which includes only one of the trial exhibits from the May trial. Mak’s failure to provide the reporter’s transcript of the trial — or any acceptable alternative — and