Marriage of G.S. and A.S. CA4/1
Filed 5/19/22 Marriage of G.S. and A.S. CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
In re the Marriage of G.S. and A.S. D077754 G.S.,
Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. DN165349)
v.
A.S.,
Appellant.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Kelly C. Mok and William Y. Wood, Judges. Affirmed. A.S., in pro. per., for Appellant. G.S., in pro. per., for Respondent.
A.S. appeals a postjudgment order denying her request for modification of an order that granted G.S. legal and physical custody of their minor children and granted her limited visitation. A.S. claims no substantial evidence supports the decision to deny her custody. Because she has not met her burden to show prejudicial error, we affirm the challenged order.
BACKGROUND A.S. and G.S. married in 1995 and had three children before they separated in 2011. Upon petition by G.S., the family court entered a judgment dissolving the marriage in 2012. The court initially granted the parties joint custody of the children, granted G.S. physical custody, and granted A.S. visitation on weekends. Due to A.S.’s erratic behavior and noncompliance with psychiatric treatment, the court in 2014 modified the custody and visitation order to grant G.S. sole legal custody of the children, to reduce A.S.’s visitation to eight hours on Saturdays, and to require the visitation be supervised. A.S. repeatedly and unsuccessfully sought more time alone with the children by filing requests for orders modifying the custody and visitation arrangement. On July 19, 2019, A.S. requested sole legal and physical custody of the two children who were still minors. In a declaration included with the request and in others filed before the hearing on the request, A.S. stated G.S. lied in court; his car did not run well and stank; he did not provide adequate food, clothing, and health care for the children; her car ran well and did not stink; she worked with children and was training to be a dental assistant; the children wanted to spend more time with her; and she wanted to spend more time with them and without supervision. On December 30, 2019, the family court held an unreported hearing at which both parties testified, and on February 28, 2020, issued an order denying the
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)