Hernandez v. Gaytan CA2/8

Filed 2/10/21 Hernandez v. Gaytan CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EIGHT

AARON HERNANDEZ, B303657

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BF058577) v.

DENISE ANAHI GAYTAN,

Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Joseph Lipner, Judge. Affirmed. Castellanos Law Group and Gabriel Castellanos for Plaintiff and Appellant. No appearance for Defendant and Respondent.

_____________________________

In 2017, father Aaron Hernandez and mother Denise Gaytan stipulated to joint legal custody of their young son L.U. (born 2016), with liberal visitation for father. In 2019, mother requested permission to move with L.U. to New Mexico, which father opposed. The trial court held a hearing on the request, during which it heard testimony from mother, father, several of father’s family members, and a Parenting Plan Assessment Evaluator. The evaluator recommended granting mother’s request: “Given that the child has been under the primary care of the mother and given that he is more emotionally attached to his mother, disrupting this relationship would have a more detrimental effect on the child than if he were to be under the primary care of the father.” The evaluator noted father had “a lot of support” in Los Angeles from family and L.U. was “very, very close” with his half brother from father, “so this was really not an easy decision. This was really hard.” The court agreed with this recommendation and granted mother’s request. Father has appealed the move-away order. Mother has filed no respondent’s brief. We affirm. Generally, the trial court may change a custody order and allow a parent to move away with a child by evaluating “ ‘the effects of relocation on the “best interest[s]” ’ ” of the child. (F.T. v. L.J. (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 1, 21.) The court considers the following factors: “the children’s interest in stability and continuity in the custodial arrangement; the distance of the move; the age of the children; the children’s relationship with both parents; the relationship between the parents including, but not limited to, their ability to communicate and cooperate effectively and their willingness to put the interests of the