Ramsden v. Peterson CA2/6

Filed 2/15/22 Ramsden v. Peterson CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIX

TYSON RAMSDEN, 2d Civil No. B310832 (Super. Ct. No. 16FL03195) Appellant, (Santa Barbara County)

v.

SADYE POWELL PETERSON,

Respondent.

Tyson Ramsden appeals from the order granting Sadye Powell Peterson’s request to move their daughter, H.P., from California to Illinois. Ramsden contends: (1) the trial court should not have allowed counsel for H.P. to make custody and visitation recommendations, (2) the court erred when it permitted H.P.’s counsel to introduce hearsay evidence, (3) the court applied the wrong standard when granting Powell’s request, and (4) the evidence was insufficient to support the order. We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Powell gave birth to H.P. in 2012. In 2016, Powell requested an order from the trial court that would permit her to

move to Arkansas with H.P. The court denied the request, but did grant Powell primary physical custody of H.P. The following year, Powell requested an order permitting her to move with H.P. to Oklahoma, where her new husband was stationed. The trial court denied the request, and Powell elected to remain in California. In May 2020, Ramsden’s then-girlfriend, S.S., called Powell and said that Ramsden had assaulted her. H.P. saw the assault, was afraid of her father, and wanted Powell to pick her up. S.S. also said that Ramsden had recently driven while intoxicated and hit a parked car while H.P. was in the vehicle. Powell filed an emergency request to take exclusive custody of H.P. The trial court denied the request and extended the existing visitation schedule. The court said that if Child Welfare Services (CWS) issued a safety plan, that plan should be followed pending a hearing later that month. At the hearing on the custody request, Ramsden and Powell stipulated that counsel should be appointed for H.P. They agreed that H.P.’s counsel should review the CWS plan and “come back . . . with a recommendation.” A few weeks later, H.P.’s appointed counsel told the trial court that H.P. “loves [Ramsden] dearly but . . . does not feel comfortable going [to his residence] during the week.” She asked the court to change the existing custody arrangement so that Ramsden would have custody of his daughter on alternating weekends. Ramsden did not object to such an interim custody order—one lasting “two weeks, or four weeks, or six weeks”—to get H.P. “stabilized” again. Powell subsequently filed another move-away request. At a February 2021 hearing on the request, the parties