M.L. v. M.T.J. CA 2/6

Filed 4/20/22 M.L. v. M.T.J. CA 2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

ROBERT M.L., 2d Civ. No. B312803 (Super. Ct. No. D399703) Plaintiff and Appellant, (Ventura County)

v.

M.T.J.,

Defendant and Respondent.

Robert M.L. (Father) appeals an order of the family law court modifying physical custody of his child and permitting M.T.J. (Mother) to relocate to Texas. We conclude that the family law court did not abuse its discretion and affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Father and Mother are parents of R., who at the time of the challenged order was two years old. Father and Mother were unmarried and had never lived together. Father was an equal custodial parent to three other children; Mother was an equal custodial parent to two other children.

On November 12, 2020, Father filed a petition to determine the parental relationship of R., then one year old. Mother responded that Father was R.’s parent by voluntary declaration of parentage. On February 18, 2021, Mother filed a request for a court order regarding child custody, visitation, and her intent to move to Texas with R. Mother supported her petition with a declaration stating that Father had “very little interest” in visiting R. despite her efforts encouraging visitation. Mother also declared that the father of her two older children was moving to McKinney, Texas for employment. Father responded that he would only consent to a 50/50 legal and physical custody order and opposed Mother’s move to Texas. Father declared that Mother would allow him to visit R. only at her home and for short periods of time. Father also stated that Mother blamed his admittedly “volatile” relationship with a former partner to preclude visitation with R. at Father’s home. The parties engaged in mediation with the family court child custody mediator. The mediator proposed a detailed visitation schedule for Father in Texas and in Southern California, as well as telephone, video, and e-mail communications with R. Father rejected the recommendation of the mediator and, on March 23, 2021, the family law court held a hearing. Mother testified that she was moving to Texas in part to maintain stability and consistency with her two older children, ages eight and five. Mother stated that she works remotely as a “transaction coordinator” in real estate sales and will continue that employment in Texas. Mother added that she intended to live with her mother who had purchased a home there. When