R.W. v. T.P. CA2/8

Filed 5/29/14 R.W. v. T.P. CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION EIGHT

R.W., B245489

Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BF028374) v.

T.P.,

Appellant.

APPEAL from the order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Michelle Williams, Judge. Affirmed.

T.P., in pro. per., for Appellant.

Gordon ‫ ׀‬Gordon Lawyers and Christiaan J. Gordon for Respondent. .

**********

SUMMARY In this protracted paternity action, which commenced in 2005, T.P. has purported to appeal from custody and child support orders entered on January 3, 2012, and from the October 1, 2012 order denying her request to modify the January 3, 2012 orders. We have dismissed the appeal of the January 3, 2012 orders as untimely, and therefore, only the October 2012 order is before us. T.P. contends she made the required prima facie showing of changed circumstances, and that the trial court abused its discretion when it failed to conduct an evidentiary hearing on her application. Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm the order below. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND R.W. and T.P. have one minor child together, M.P., born in 1996. In 2005, R.W. initiated a paternity action against T.P. In March 2006, the parties entered into a Conciliation Court Agreement and Stipulated Order re Custody and Parenting Plan. The parties agreed to share legal custody of M.P., with T.P. having primary physical custody, and R.W. to receive visitation according to an agreed upon schedule. However, the litigation became contentious, fraught with disputes about parental decision-making authority and financial matters. The exact scope and number of the disputes is not clear from the record on appeal, which includes only a sampling of motions and orders. What the record does reveal is that in December 2010, the trial court entered a judgment, following a contested proceeding, governing custody, healthcare decisions, communication between the parents, enrichment and social activities, education, and holidays. The judgment gave the parents joint legal custody, with the “primary caretaking responsibility” residing with T.P. In September 2011, T.P. sought an ex parte order to allow her to move with M.P. to New York. In support of her ex parte application, T.P. included a declaration from M.P. that she wanted to live in New York with her mother. On October 3, 2011, the trial court entered an order denying T.P.’s requested ex parte relief, and ordered that M.P. would live with R.W., awarding T.P. visitation on the first, third, and fifth weekend of