Stovall v. Cox CA1/3

Filed 2/16/16 Stovall v. Cox CA1/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE

JEANNA STOVALL, Plaintiff and Appellant, A144769 v. KIERAN A. COX, (Alameda County Super. Ct. No. AF12639961) Defendant and Respondent.

Appellant Jeanna Stovall, appearing in propria persona, appeals from an order awarding her and respondent Kieran A. Cox joint physical and legal custody of their now four-year-old son and denying Stovall’s request to move to Illinois with the child. She contends the court abused its discretion in determining that the custody order was in the child’s best interest. Cox has not filed an appellate brief. We find no error and shall affirm the court’s order. Factual and Procedural Background In July 2012, Stovall filed a petition to establish that Cox was the father of her son. In January 2013, the court found that Cox is the child’s father and ordered supervised visitation. Thereafter, the court issued an order setting Cox’s child support at $1,577 per month and his share of the child care costs at $744 per month. In a prior opinion, this court found that the trial court had abused its discretion in calculating Cox’s income and remanded for recalculation. (Stovall v. Cox (Nov. 24, 2014, A140942) [nonpub. opn.].) While the child support order was pending on appeal, the issues of custody, timeshare and Stovall’s request to move to Illinois were tried before the court. Following

1

six days of trial, the court issued a final custody order awarding Stovall and Cox joint physical and legal custody of their son and denying Stovall’s request to move permanently with the child to Illinois. The trial court concluded that shared custody of the child in California was in the child’s best interests. The court found that both parents had a close relationship with their son and that “each parent has strengths and weaknesses and each parent has parenting traits that will benefit [the child].” The court also found that the child had extended family in both California and Illinois, but that his ties to his family in California, and his paternal grandmother in particular, were stronger. Stovall filed a timely notice of appeal.1 Discussion “California’s statutory scheme governing child custody and visitation determinations is set forth in the Family Code [2] . . . . Under this scheme, ‘the overarching concern is the best interest of the child.’ [Citation.] For purposes of an initial custody determination, section 3040, subdivision (b), affords the trial court and the family ‘ “the widest discretion to choose a parenting plan that is in the best interest of the child.” ’ [Citation.] When the parents are unable to agree on a custody arrangement, the court must determine the best interest of the child by setting the matter for an adversarial hearing and considering all relevant factors, including the child's health, safety, and welfare, any history of abuse by one parent against any child or the other parent, and the nature and amount of the child's contact with the parents.” (In re Marriage of Brown & Yana (2006) 37 Cal.4th 947, 955-956.) On appeal, custody orders are reviewed for an abuse of discretion, and the trial court's factual findings are reviewed under the substantial evidence standard. (In re Marriage of Fajota (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 1487, 1497.) The record in this case provides ample support for the court’s factual findings and these findings, in turn, support the court’s exercise of discretion in ordering joint 1 Stovall’s request for judicial notice of a transcript of a hearing occurring after the filing of the notice of appeal and the findings and order entered following the hearing is denied. 2 All statutory references are to the Family Code unless otherwise noted.