Marriage of Vangelisti CA6

Filed 2/24/15 Marriage of Vangelisti CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

In re Marriage of PAUL and HA LE H039907 VANGELISTI. (Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. 1-09-FL151997)

PAUL VANGELISTI,

Appellant,

v.

HA LE VANGELISTI,

Respondent.

Appellant Paul Vangelisti (father) and respondent Ha Le Vangelisti (mother) were married in 1997 and separated in 2005.1 They share custody of their daughter (daughter), who was born in January 2001. In February 2013, father brought a motion seeking to set aside the existing custody orders on the grounds that those orders were obtained through extrinsic fraud, specifically that mother had coerced daughter to lie during an emergency screening in 2011. The trial court appointed minor’s counsel to investigate father’s allegations. At a subsequent hearing, minor’s counsel advised the trial court daughter confirmed that mother had pressured her to not be “completely candid” in the screening and, in one instance, daughter did not tell the complete truth to the screener. Daughter

1 The marriage was dissolved on December 2, 2010, with the court reserving jurisdiction over all other matters.

also told minor’s counsel she was happy with the current custody arrangements and did not want it to change. Father asked that the court set a full hearing and call daughter to testify. After minor’s counsel indicated it would not be in daughter’s best interest to testify in front of her parents, the trial court denied father’s request and subsequently denied father’s motion. On appeal, father argues the trial court erred in denying his motion because he was “kept in ignorance of material facts and was fraudulently prevented from fully presenting his case based upon [mother]’s coercion” of their daughter. Alternatively, he argues the trial court abused its discretion in denying his request for a full hearing on the matter in which daughter would testify about mother’s coercion. We disagree with both of father’s arguments and will affirm. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Father and mother were married in November 1997 and separated in 2005. Daughter was born in 2001. Father filed a petition for dissolution of marriage in 2009 in which he sought joint legal and physical custody of daughter. A status-only judgment of dissolution was entered in December 2010, with the court reserving jurisdiction over custody and all other issues. In November 2010, father moved for an order granting him full legal and physical custody of daughter, rather than joint custody. In his supporting declaration, father said daughter had told him that mother had taken her to a “nightclub . . . until 1:30 a.m. where people drink alcohol . . . , dance and sing karaoke.” Daughter also told father of “midnight stops at a Vietnamese restaurant in East San Jose that they go to . . . eat noodle soup.” Father was concerned this put daughter at risk of “possible foul play or attacks.” He also alleged that mother was physically and emotionally abusive towards daughter, was not providing her adequate care, nutrition or an adequate place to live. Mother’s responsive declaration denied father’s allegations and accused him of physical and emotional abuse toward her and daughter during their marriage. As to the