W.M. v. S.F. CA4/3

Filed 9/20/16 W.M. v. S.F. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

W. M.,

Plaintiff and Respondent, G050068

v. (Super. Ct. No. 98P001103)

S. F., OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from orders of the Superior Court of Orange County, Ronald P. Kreber, Judge. Appeal dismissed in part as moot; remaining orders affirmed. S.F., in pro. per., for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Dickens wrote about a fictional case, Jarndyce v. Jarndyce, in which the legal fees incurred fighting over an inheritance completely ate up the inheritance, leaving the parties nothing. This unhappy and frankly tragic family law custody and visitation case is sadly similar. Instead of an inheritance, what was used up in years of litigation was the possibility a daughter might have developed a positive relationship with her mother during the daughter’s childhood. Now it is too late. The daughter turned 18 during the pendency of this appeal. We address only the legal issues, which have now also been used up. The case began in November 1998, when W.M. (Father), filed a paternity action against S.F. (Mother). At the time the action was filed, the child was barely six months old. As often happens in paternity cases, Mother was initially awarded physical custody while Father was awarded visitation rights. But the case took an unusual turn in 2003. Mother made accusations of serious, indeed horrific, child sexual abuse against Father. The trial court had an evaluation performed by a psychologist, Dr. David Mann (see Evid. Code, § 730), who determined the accusations were unfounded. However, beyond just being unfounded, Dr. Mann concluded Mother’s strong belief that Father had molested the child itself posed a danger of emotional damage to the child.1 The trial court responded by giving legal and physical custody to Father. Mother might have appealed from the 2003 ruling that changed custody based on Dr. Mann’s report, and if she could show his conclusions were unsupported (say, for example, by establishing that Dr. Mann had not considered all the evidence), any