Marriage of Johns CA3

Filed 7/29/15 Marriage of Johns CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----

In re the Marriage of JEREMY and MELISSA J. C074271 JOHNS.

JEREMY JOHNS, (Super. Ct. No. 11FL03116)

Respondent,

v.

MELISSA J. JOHNS,

Appellant.

Melissa J. Johns (mother), in propria persona, appeals from a postjudgment order modifying custody of the minor children she shares with Jeremy Johns (father). Mother contends the trial court abused its discretion in modifying the prior custody order without a finding of changed circumstances, erred in admitting the mediator’s report and recommendation, and failed to consider relevant evidence. We affirm.

1

DISCUSSION The postjudgment order from which mother appeals, issued following a contested hearing in the trial court. The appellate record, however, does not include a reporter’s transcript from that hearing, and no reporter is noted in the minute order.1 Therefore, we treat this as an appeal on the judgment roll. (Allen v. Toten (1985) 172 Cal.App.3d 1079, 1082-1083 (Allen); Krueger v. Bank of America (1983) 145 Cal.App.3d 204, 207.) The limited record we have establishes that a judgment dissolving the parties’ marriage was entered on December 14, 2011. Included in that judgment was a stipulated custody order. Father moved to modify that stipulated custody order in January 2012, and on March 14, 2012, the trial court granted father’s motion - adopting the family court services recommended parenting plan. On November 9, 2012, father filed a motion to modify the March 14, 2012, custody order. Mother opposed the motion and the trial court presided over a contested hearing on March 28, 2013. Following that hearing, the trial court granted father’s motion. The court continued the order for joint custody but modified the parenting and holiday schedules. The court also ruled that this was “not a final custody determination. The court desires to keep the best interests standard in play for possible modification. The court is concerned by []/Mother’s obstruction and resistance to []/Father’s relationship with the children and would entertain moving primary physical custody to []/Father if this keeps up.” Mother appeals from this order.