Bray v. Watson CA4/1

Filed 2/17/22 Bray v. Watson 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FARRAH BRAY, D078567

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. No. 18FL014172E)

BRANDON WATSON,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Saba Sheibani, Judge. Affirmed. Brandon Watson, in pro. per., for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Appellant Brandon Watson, the father in this move-away case (Father), challenges the family court’s order awarding primary custody of his now three-year-old daughter A. to respondent Farrah Bray (Mother) in conjunction with a family move to North Carolina. As is increasingly common, both parties in this family law appeal are self-represented, and we

fully appreciate the significant challenges self-represented litigants face in both the trial and appellate courts. These challenges are only compounded by the anxieties and frustrations inherent in a move-away request, where most often there is no “happy” solution. Parents who could otherwise share the custody and companionship of their child while living in the same community cannot both have the same “frequent and continuing contact” with their child when they live on opposite coasts. (See Fam. Code, § 3040, subd. (a)(1).) Here, Father’s brief attempts to argue issues outside the move-away order that is the proper subject of this appeal; Mother has filed no brief at all. Still, we have done our best to identify the arguments that are appropriately before us. Our review of the record convinces us that the family court judge considered the relevant circumstances and made a thoughtful judgment call, knowing that at least one parent would be disappointed, if not distraught. Ultimately, Father has failed to show that the court abused its broad discretion in making Mother the primary custodian after the cross-country move. Accordingly, we affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Father and Mother are the parents of three-year-old A. To say they have a contentious relationship with respect to their daughter would be an understatement. According to the family judge, theirs’ was “one of my most high-conflict” cases with “multiple restraining orders, multiple RFOs, multiple child welfare reports, multiple police interventions.” The judge estimated that in two years, the parents had appeared in her courtroom at least ten times and probably more. Despite their conflicts, the parents shared custody of A. equally, splitting each week on a 50/50 basis. Along with A., Mother resided with her husband, who was in the Navy, and a five-year-old son (from a prior