Petrosyan v. Zuniga CA2/8

Filed 4/29/22 Petrosyan v. Zuniga CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EIGHT

ARMINE PETROSYAN, B309812

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. PD054234) v.

RUDY ZUNIGA,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Mark A. Juhas, Judge. Affirmed.

Law Offices of Adam R. Bernstein and Adam R. Bernstein for Defendant and Appellant.

Gumm & Green, Anita Gumm; Ferguson Case Orr Paterson and Wendy C. Lascher for Plaintiff and Respondent.

**********

Father Rudy Zuniga appeals a postjudgment order modifying the visitation of mother Armine Petrosyan with their child, S.Z., arguing the family court was required to, but did not find that changed circumstances justified the order. Finding the court’s order merely addressed visitation, and not custody, the best interests of the child standard controlled, and there was no abuse of discretion. We therefore affirm. BACKGROUND This family has a long and contentious history in family court, but the record before us is limited. In August 2013, the family court entered a judgment providing mother and father with joint physical and legal custody of S.Z., with alternating weeks of parenting time. That order is not part of the record on appeal. On February 5, 2018, family court Judge Christine Byrd entered an order following a multi-day hearing on competing requests by both mother and father to modify the custody order. Previously, the parties had extensively litigated custody and visitation issues based on concerns that mother was abusing substances. Temporary orders were entered, giving father sole physical custody, providing that mother’s visitation was to be monitored, and that mother was required to drug test. Mother consistently tested positive for marijuana, or refused to test, missed some tests, and other tests were “dilute,” which created concerns that mother was tampering with the tests. Text messages suggested that mother used cocaine and ecstasy. Mother had been addicted to Xanax for four years, attended a “detox” program in 2016, and then switched to marijuana to control her anxiety and panic attacks, for which she had a prescription.