Marriage of Erikson CA2/6

Filed 6/2/15 Marriage of Erikson CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIX

In re Marriage of KAREN LIEBSCHER 2d Civil No. B255411 ERIKSON and ROLF FORDE ERIKSON. (Super. Ct. No. FL031235) (San Luis Obispo County)

KAREN LIEBSCHER ERIKSON,

Appellant,

v.

ROLF FORDE ERIKSON,

Respondent.

Karen Liebscher Erikson appeals an order terminating the appointment of her children's therapist, Suzanne Cholet, and appointing a replacement therapist. We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Karen and Rolf were married briefly in 2003.1 Karen obtained a domestic violence restraining order against Rolf before she gave birth to their son and daughter, twins, in 2004.

1 We shall refer to Karen Liebscher Erikson and Rolf Forde Erikson by their first names not from disrespect, but to ease the reader's task.

In 2006, the trial court awarded sole physical and legal custody to Karen, based partly on Rolf's criminal history, alcohol and drug dependency, and explosive behavior during visits with the twins. It ordered supervised visitation for Rolf. The paternal grandmother, Doreen Webb, intervened and sought visitation. The trial court denied her request because she was unable to control her undermining behavior toward Karen. By 2011, the trial court record consisted of 18 volumes in this "highly contested" case. The record on appeal includes only a fraction of these documents. It omits a number of findings and orders that may have guided our review of the trial court's decision to substitute therapists. In 2009, the trial court appointed Suzanne Cholet, LMFT, as the minors' therapist. It granted Rolf weekly supervised visits with the children. The record omits this order, but the parties refer to it. In 2011, minors' counsel recommended therapeutic visits because the visits with Rolf were detrimental. In support of the request, Cholet declared, "The visits with father are not only detrimental to the children, they are counterproductive to forming a child/parent relationship with [father]." Cholet based her opinion on her weekly observations of the minors following their visits with Rolf between 2009 and 2011. The trial court appointed a therapist to conduct therapeutic visits. He withdrew before conducting any visits, because of Rolf's and Karen's "resistance" to the process. Rolf had no visits with his children for eight months. The trial court appointed a replacement therapist, Stephanie Wilson, LMFT, to conduct the therapeutic visits. Tension later developed between Cholet and Wilson. First, a disagreement arose between Cholet and minors' counsel about whether Karen and Rolf's daughter needed a psychological evaluation. Minors' counsel reported that the daughter, now eight years old, needed to be evaluated by a psychologist and that the minors' therapist, Cholet, was "adamant that the [daughter] does not require an evaluation." Minors' counsel reported that disciplinary records from the daughter's school from 2010 to 2012 recorded 90 instances of behavior, many of which involved her