Jessica M. v. Emmanuel G. CA5

Filed 10/4/22 Jessica M. v. Emmanuel G. CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

JESSICA M., F083315 Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 20FL-01343) v.

EMMANUEL G., OPINION Appellant.

THE COURT * APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Merced County. Shelly Seymour, Judge. Emmanuel G., in pro. per., for Defendant and Appellant. No response for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Levy, Acting P. J., Snauffer, J. and DeSantos, J.

Appellant Emmanuel G. challenges the decision of the trial court to award sole custody of his son to the child’s mother, Jessica M. (mother), and to deny him visitation. We have reviewed the entire record and each argument raised by appellant. We conclud e the order entered by the trial court is supported by the record and consistent with the best interest of the child. We affirm the judgment entered below. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY Appellant and mother are the parents of a son (son) who was born in February 2014. When one of mother’s older children from a prior relationship was hospitalized with an aneurism in 2018, requiring her constant presence at the hospital, mother sent son to live with appellant. Once mother was able to bring her old er son home, the parties shared time with son amicably through 2019, even though mother moved to Chowchilla, and appellant moved son to a private school. In July 2019, mother filed a police report against appellant. Starting in March 2020, appellant only allowed mother to have access to son on the weekends. Sometime after March 2020, however, appellant would not allow mother to visit son due to appellant believing that mother had received COVID-19 stimulus funds for son. Also, during this period, appellant started insisting mother’s boyfriend should not be around their son. In July 2020, appellant submitted a “Responsive Declaration to Request for Order,” apparently addressing a request from son’s mother for sole custody. In his declaration, appellant admits the existence of a “domestic violence restraining/protective order[],”1 and that he opposed mother’s request for sole custody of son. Appellant further expresses his belief son’s mother sought sole custody because he refused to allow her to visit with son until she paid appellant stimulus money he believed she received for son.