K.T. v. L.H. CA4/1
Filed 2/3/22 K.T. v. L.H. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
K. T., D078689
Respondent,
v. (Super. Ct. No. 18FL014744C)
L. H.,
Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Marcella O. McLaughlin, Judge. Reversed.
Law Office of Anthony J. Boucek and Anthony J. Boucek for Appellant. No appearance for Respondent. L. H. (Mother) and K. T. (Father) were divorced in 2019 and share a young son. Mother challenges an order of the family court requiring her to undergo a mental health evaluation and participate in counseling until released by the therapist. Father did not file a response to Mother’s opening brief. Because the court’s order failed to make the findings required by Family Code section 3190, we reverse.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Mother and Father were married in 2016 and their son was born in 2017. The minor was born deaf, and at the time of the proceedings at issue, was under the care of several medical specialists and enrolled in a school for the hearing impaired. The parties finalized their divorce in 2019. The judgment of dissolution included custody and visitation orders giving Mother, who resides in San Diego, primary physical custody, with regular visitation for Father, who resides in Glendale. In 2020, Father filed a request for order (RFO) seeking full legal and physical custody of the minor. Prior to filing the RFO, Father and Mother participated in mediation with family court services. The mediator recommended joint legal custody and that Mother continue primary physical custody of the minor and that the visitation schedule remain the same. Father filed a declaration in support of his RFO. In it, he alleged Mother had instructed the minor’s education and health care providers to withhold information from him. Father also alleged that Mother was not following the existing custody and visitation order, and in some instances preventing Father from seeing the minor. Father further asserted that after his visits with the minor, the transitions back to Mother were extremely difficult and the minor did not want to return to Mother. Father stated that Mother was scheduled to be incarcerated later that year for several months and that she was refusing to allow Father to care for their son during that time. Father also alleged Mother was abusing the judicial system, filing serial restraining orders to attempt to prevent Father from being with the minor, and falsely reporting to the police that Father abused her. Father also explained that Mother had been arrested in 2018 for throwing a spoon at him, and again in 2019 for child endangerment (the
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)