Daire v. Mason CA2/2

Filed 5/12/15 Daire v. Mason CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO

MELINDA LEAH DAIRE, B252567

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BF043273) v.

ROGER P. MASON, JR.,

Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Mark A. Juhas, Judge. Affirmed.

Melinda Leah Daire, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Trope and Trope and Brian P. Lepak for Defendant and Respondent.

____________________

This appeal stems from a child custody ruling. Appellant Melinda Leah Daire (Melinda), who appears in propria persona and lives in Los Angeles, and Roger P. Mason, Jr. (Roger),1 who lives on the east coast, are the parents of three-year-old Roger M. (Czar) (born Aug. 2011). Following a bench trial, the trial court awarded Roger sole legal custody of Czar as to medical and educational issues and primary physical custody, specifying visitation rights. Melinda contends the trial court erred in denying her ex parte application to strike the child custody evaluation report and that no substantial evidence supports the court’s custody order. We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On March 5, 2012, when Czar was six months old, Melinda and Roger, who have never lived together, stipulated to the appointment of James T. Long, Ph.D. as the child custody evaluator in this case, pursuant to Evidence Code section 730 (section 730). The stipulated order stated that Dr. Long was “to file a written report and be available to testify on July 18, 2012, if necessary.” Displeased with Dr. Long’s report, Melinda filed an ex parte application to continue the child custody hearing and request that her own expert be appointed pursuant to Evidence Code section 733. The ex parte application was granted. The matter was continued to September 5, 2012, and Melinda retained Jeffrey Arden, Ph.D. Melinda subsequently made an ex parte request for another continuance of the custody hearing, which was also granted. On September 14, 2012, Melinda and Roger each filed ex parte applications. Melinda sought to set the parameters of Dr. Arden’s evaluation and request that Roger make himself available to Dr. Arden for evaluation. Roger sought to modify the March 5, 2012 stipulated order by specifying the scope of Dr. Long’s evaluation and to give each party an opportunity to submit any further written information to Dr. Long. In arguing his position to the trial court, Roger’s attorney explained that he did not want