Mowatt v. Chafiq CA2/5

Filed 4/12/22 Mowatt v. Chafiq CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE

CHRISTOPHER MOWATT, B311870

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. YD059396) v.

HOUDA CHAFIQ,

Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Gia G. Bosley, Judge. Affirmed. Christopher Mowatt, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant. No appearance for Respondent. __________________________________

In this marital dissolution case, Petitioner and appellant Christopher Mowatt (Father) appeals from a post-judgment order changing the visitation schedule and requiring him to cooperate

to obtain a new passport for the parties’ minor child. The sole issue raised on appeal concerns the family law court’s denial of Father’s oral motion to disqualify the family law judge under Code of Civil Procedure section 170.1.1 A determination concerning disqualification under section 170.1 is not an appealable order, however, and Father has not shown that his due process right to an impartial judge was violated. Therefore, we affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Father and respondent Houda Chafiq (Mother), whose marriage was terminated by a judgement entered in this case in 2011, share custody of one child. The parties’ prior visitation schedule is not part of the record on appeal, but on February 20, 2020, Mother filed a request for an order seeking to change the visitation schedule to provide Father with visitation on alternate weekends and ordering Father to cooperate in obtaining a new passport for the child. Father did not file any opposition to the request. A hearing was held on Mother’s request on January 13, 2021. At the hearing, Father requested a continuance to obtain counsel. The family law judge denied the request for a continuance because the matter had been pending for nearly a year, but Father had not filed a responsive declaration or a