Marriage of Lopez CA4/3

Filed 12/29/21 Marriage of Lopez 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 the Marriage of ARTHUR and CHERYL LOPEZ.

ARTHUR LOPEZ, G059648 Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. 16D001283) v. OPINIO N CHERYL LOPEZ,

Respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Daphne Grace Sykes, Judge. Affirmed. Arthur Lopez, in pro. per., for Appellant. No appearance for Respondent.

Appellant Arthur Lopez (appellant) appeals from an order denying his request to grant him custody of his four children. We conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying his request and affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY This is the sixth separate opinion of this court generated in this case. The background facts are set forth in our earlier nonpublished opinion and are not repeated here. As a result of a domestic violence incident in 2015 that gave rise to criminal charges against appellant and a criminal protective order against appellant, appellant’s former wife had sole custody of their four children. (In re Marriage of Lopez (February 26, 2018, G054262) [nonpub. opn.].) By July 2020, appellant had not seen his children in four and a half years, and appellant, appellant’s former wife, and their children had stipulated to participate in reunification therapy. Appellant petitioned the court for a change in custody, contending appellant’s former wife had refused to participate in reunification therapy. At the hearing, the court read aloud a letter submitted to the court by the reunification therapist. The letter described therapy meetings with appellant, appellant’s wife, and each of their four children. The three older children expressed no interest in repairing their relationship with their father, each recalling “memories of rage with aggressive, physical contact by [appellant].” The youngest child did not remember his father and feared any changes in his family. The therapist did not recommend an order requiring the children to have formal or informal sessions or supervised visitation with appellant, assessing that such an order would “have a deleterious [e]ffect and undermine its purpose.” Relying on the therapist’s recommendation, the court declined to modify the existing custody arrangement. Appellant timely appealed.