Rahimzadeh v. Armian CA1/1

Filed 4/10/15 Rahimzadeh v. Armian CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE

NELLIE RAHIMZADEH, Plaintiff and Respondent, A142674 v. SALEH ARMIAN, (Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No. MSD1004853) Defendant and Appellant.

In this family law proceeding, defendant Saleh Armian appeals from the trial court’s orders denying his motion for a new custody trial and denying his motion to modify the existing custody and visitation orders. He also appeals from the order denying two motions to compel the production of documents from two court-appointed custody evaluators, as well as the order awarding sanctions against him under Family Code section 271. We affirm.1 FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Defendant and plaintiff Nellie Rahimzadeh were married in June 2000. They separated in September 2010 and a judgment of dissolution was granted on June 24, 2013. The parties have a son who was born in June 2005. On June 3, 2013, the Family Court Services Program (FCSP) prepared a report recommending continued psychotherapeutic counseling for the child. The report also

1 Respondent has not filed a responsive brief. If a respondent fails to file a response, the appellate court “will decide the appeal on the record, the opening brief, and any oral argument by the appellant.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.360(c)(5)(A) & (B).)

recommended counseling for defendant, and for plaintiff to temporarily be designated as the child’s sole legal custodial parent. The report proposed visitation for defendant be set at twice per week for up to eight hours each week in the continual presence of a court- designated professional supervisor. On June 7, 2013, the trial court filed an order for supervised visitation for defendant, due to his “alarming behaviors.” On August 21, 2013, a full custody trial was held. The court continued the June 3, 2013 recommendations of the FCSP, including the recommendation for supervised visitation. On December 23, 2013, defendant filed a request for an order modifying child custody and visitation. On March 17, 2014, the FCSP completed a status report. On March 25, 2014, a hearing was held on defendant’s request for modification. After both parties were sworn and examined, the court found there was insufficient evidence to show modification of custody would be in the child’s best interests. The court also found there was no change in circumstances and no offer of proof that there would be any new information. On April 23, 2014, the trial court filed its findings and order after hearing. Plaintiff was awarded legal and physical custody of the minor. The court found modification was not in the child’s best interests because (1) defendant had refused to execute releases for the FCSP to interview all the contacts necessary to make a determination regarding the best interests of the child, (2) defendant had not paid for the child’s therapy with the specified provider as ordered, and (3) there had been no change in circumstances since the August 21, 2013 full custody trial. On May 22, 2014, defendant filed a motion for modification of the custody and visitation orders issued on April 23, 2014, and for a trial de novo. On June 11, 2014, defendant filed motions to compel the production of documents as to Randy Kolin and Rhonda B. Barovsky. He also sought sanctions against them. Both Kolin and Barovsky are mental health professionals who were appointed by the trial