C.T. v. K.W. CA1/4

Filed 10/6/22 C.T. v. K.W. CA1/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

C.T., Plaintiff and Respondent, A161991, A163289, A163367 v. K.W., (City & County of San Francisco Super. Ct. No. FDV-19-814465) Defendant and Appellant.

K.W. (mother) and C.T. (father) are involved in an ongoing custody dispute regarding their now four-year-old child. In the present appeal, mother challenges an order entered November 3, 2020, prohibiting her from taking photos of the child during her supervised visits and reiterating the previously imposed requirement that she effect personal service of every document she files in the trial court proceedings.1 We find no error and affirm the order.

Mother filed three notices of appeal challenging multiple orders 1

entered between November 3, 2020, and August 6, 2021, which were consolidated by this court. In her reply brief, she concedes that the only issues that remain for decision are “[w]hether the ‘No Pictures’ Injunction (Order entered without a noticed motion), and the Proof of Service requirement that contradicts allowable methods under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. (CCP) § 1010.6 ordered by Judge Monica F. Wiley at a hearing on 08/27/20 (FOAH [final order after hearing] entered on 11/3/20) is an abuse of

1

Background The record in this appeal is largely unworkable. Mother has filed appendices under various appellate case numbers and seeks judicial notice of records filed in yet other appellate cases. She has also filed numerous requests for judicial notice of volumes of documents. In the interest of judicial efficiency, we deny all requests for judicial notice on the grounds of relevance, with the exception that we take judicial notice of the appellant’s appendix and respondent’s appendix filed in appellate case No. A161993. A full recitation of the lengthy custody and domestic violence proceedings between the parties is not necessary for resolution of the present appeal. The following summary is sufficient: “The parties’ son was born in November 2018. . . . [I]n February 2019, father initiated the present action under the Domestic Violence Prevention Act, [Family Code] section 6200 et seq., in San Francisco, requesting protective orders as well as sole legal and physical custody of his son. In support of his request for a protective order, father submitted documents evidencing mother's repeated online cyberstalking and harassment of father, conduct which . . . led to the filing of criminal charges against mother in the San Francisco Superior Court. The petition also alleges that mother has a criminal history of domestic violence and at that time in Utah was facing electronic harassment charges involving a different victim. Much if not all of the threatening and harassing behavior alleged in the petition involves the child and the petition alleges that the child is at risk as a result of mother’s ‘compulsive, obsessive and abusive behaviors.’ [¶] In March 2019, the San Francisco court issued an amended