A.S. v. A.P. CA2/6

Filed 8/2/22 A.S. v. A.P. CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

A.S., 2d Civ. No. B313839 (Super. Ct. No. D352607) Plaintiff and Respondent, (Ventura County)

v.

A.P.,

Defendant and Appellant.

A.P. (Mother) appeals an order that denied her request for sole custody of her minor son Antonio and modified custody rights in favor of A.S. (Father). We affirm. FACTS Mother and Father are the parents of Antonio, age eight. Father filed a petition seeking custody of his child. In 2015, the parents stipulated and the court ordered that the parents “share joint legal custody” of the child in “such a way so as to assure the child continuing contact with both parents.” One provision provided Antonio would be with Mother “every other week

1

beginning at 8:30 a.m. on Wednesday until 12:30 p.m. on Sunday.” In April 2021, Mother filed a “request for order” claiming Antonio “has been suffering” because of Father’s physical and mental abuse. She requested “sole legal and physical custody.” Father denied her accusations. He testified Mother violated the trial court order by interfering with his custody rights and not cooperating in custody arrangements. Antonio wanted to live with him and was not afraid of him. Father did not abuse the child. On one occasion, he slapped him one time on the buttocks with his open hand. The child deserved that discipline. Mother testified that at Christmas Antonio was crying. Antonio said his “dad hit him.” Mother followed the court order and cooperated with Father. The court mediator’s conclusion that Antonio was being influenced by her “emotions” was not true. Antonio feared Father and she did not encourage that fear. Rachel Curtis, the superior court “mediator for Family Court Services,” testified that Antonio “seemed unrealistic in explaining and self-disclosing his fears of [Father].” Mother is “negatively influencing [Antonio] to fear his father.” Curtis recommended that “redefining the mother’s time would give [Antonio] the time that he needs to be able to spend time with the father on the weekend, a full weekend.” Allowing Father to have the extra time would allow Antonio “to bond” with Father and that is in the best interests of the child. The trial court found that Father was credible and that Mother was not following the court order. The child “was in the middle of this conflict” and the status quo is “ruinous for [Antonio].” It followed Curtis’s recommendation that for the