Carter v. Dominguez CA2/2

Filed 8/31/16 Carter v. Dominguez 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

JAMES C. CARTER, JR., B265225

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. TF002544) v.

DELIA DOMINGUEZ,

Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Dianna Gould-Saltman, Judge. Affirmed.

La Quinta Law Group and Timothy L. Ewanyshyn for Plaintiff and Appellant.

James Migler for Defendant and Respondent.

Appellant James C. Carter, Jr. (grandfather) appeals from an order denying his request for visitation with his minor grandson Aidan (born Aug. 2003). We affirm the trial court’s order. BACKGROUND Grandfather’s joinder and judgment awarding mother sole custody Grandfather is Aidan’s paternal grandfather. Respondent Delia Dominguez (mother) is Aidan’s mother, and James Carter, III (father), is Aidan’s father.1 Aidan’s parents separated in 2004, and a custody dispute ensued. Both parents initially consented to having appellant joined as third party in this case. Pursuant to a judgment entered on May 1, 2007, mother was awarded sole legal and physical custody of Aidan. Father was accorded supervised visits with Aidan every Saturday afternoon and three one-week vacation periods. The judgment ordered grandfather to stay at least 100 yards away from mother and prohibited him from contacting, harassing, attacking, striking, threatening, assaulting, stalking, or disturbing her. The judgment further prohibited contact between grandfather and Aidan. After entry of the judgment, the parties agreed that grandfather could have visits with Aidan, and several visits occurred between 2010 and early 2014. In early 2014, mother stopped allowing grandfather’s visits. Mother’s petition to dismiss grandfather’s joinder In July 2014, mother filed a petition for an order dismissing grandfather’s joinder as a party to the case. In response, grandfather filed a declaration in which he recounted his visits with Aidan over the years and mother’s refusal to allow visits since January 1, 2014. Grandfather requested an order according him visits with Aidan. At the October 3, 2014 hearing on mother’s petition, father testified that he supported mother’s request to remove grandfather as a joined party in the case. Father stated that the parties had previously agreed to the joinder because father lived with grandfather at the time and grandfather was helping him. Father said that he no longer