J.H. v. R.T. CA4/1

Filed 6/22/21 J.H. v. R.T. CA4/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

J.H., D077150

Appellant,

v. (Super. Ct. No. ED83431)

R.T.,

Respondent.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Laura E. Duffy, Judge. Affirmed. J.H., in pro. per. for Appellant. Victor Mordey for Respondent.

R.T. (Mother) is the custodial parent and J.H. (Father) is the noncustodial parent of minor O.H. (Child). In the proceedings below, Mother requested permission from the family court to relocate out of state with Child. After a hearing, the court granted Mother’s request. The court’s move-away order states that the court read and considered the best interests of the child factors delineated in In re Marriage of LaMusga

(2004) 32 Cal.4th 1072. Then, it sets forth the following factual findings: (1) the “reason for the proposed move is for family support, financial opportunities, and … maternal grandmother offered a home in which [Child] will have his own bedroom;” (2) “[M]other has been the primary care taker;” (3) “There is a Restraining Order against [Father] protecting [Child];” (4) “The distance of the move is relatively short;” (5) “The minor child is 8 years old, and children that age are resilient to these types of change;” (6) “The relationship between [Mother] and [Father] is strained and distant;” and (7) “[Child] is too young for the Court to consider his wishes.” Based on these factual findings, the court determined the relocation was in Child’s best interests and the court granted Mother’s move-away request. Father, appearing in propria persona, appeals the order granting the

move-away request.1 He asserts, without citation to the appellate record, that he has “been in [his] sons [sic] life for all of his life,” Mother has failed to ensure that Child receives court-ordered therapy services, Mother coerced Child into making false allegations of child abuse against Father, and Mother already moved out of state before requesting the move-away order at issue. Although Father’s appellate brief is difficult to decipher, it appears he claims substantial evidence did not support the family court’s factual findings and the court abused its discretion in granting the move-away request. “ ‘[A] judgment or order of the trial court is presumed correct and prejudicial error must be affirmatively shown. [Citation.] “In the absence of