Marriage of Gensler CA4/3

Filed 8/25/16 Marriage of Gensler CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

In re Marriage of HOWARD and MARILYN GENSLER.

HOWARD GENSLER, G052111 Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. 11D010570) v. OPINION MARILYN GENSLER,

Respondent.

Appeal from postjudgment orders of the Superior Court of Orange County, Claudia Silbar, Judge. Appeal dismissed in part as moot; remaining order affirmed. Howard Gensler, in pro. per., for Appellant. Law Office of Desiree Causey and Desiree Causey for Respondent. * * * Howard and Marilyn Gensler were divorced in February 2012. The couple had four children, including Jennifer, the youngest, born in April, 1998. The judgment, born of an agreement between the parties, provided for equal physical custody of the four

children between them, i.e., 50-50. On March 11, 2015, the trial court made an order which vested sole legal and physical custody of Jennifer in Marilyn, apparently because of a perceived breakdown in the relationship between Howard and his daughter. Howard has appealed from that order.1 We are forced to dismiss that part of Howard’s appeal as regards the custody and visitation order as to Jennifer. Jennifer turned 18 in April, 2016, and with that, California courts lost all jurisdiction to force visitation between Jennifer and her father. We could not now give Howard the relief he seeks even if, for sake of argument, we were to find his position otherwise compelling. (See In re Marriage of Jensen (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 587, 594 [“the court had no authority to issue a visitation order regarding Poomi after he reached the age of majority”]; Gonzalez v. Munoz (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 413, 419 [“A question becomes moot when, pending an appeal from a judgment of a trial court, events transpire which prevent the appellate court from granting any effectual relief.”].) This is one of the unfortunate cases where taking an appeal, given the usual time delays, does not afford an aggrieved litigant an “adequate remedy” at law. Howard’s real remedy was to have immediately petitioned this court for writ relief. (See Keith R. v. Superior Court (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 1047, 1057 [“There is a particular need to accelerate the writ process in child custody disputes where children grow up quickly and have immediate needs.”].) We will, however, observe for Howard’s benefit that visitation and custody orders arising out of divorce regularly have nothing to do with parental unfitness. The question of parental unfitness typically arises not in the divorce context, but in the juvenile dependency context, where the government may be stepping in to permanently