Marriage of Freeman CA5
Filed 10/13/22 Marriage of Freeman 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
In re the Marriage of EDWARD SHELDON and JEWEL BIANCA FREEMAN.
EDWARD SHELDON FREEMAN, F083654
Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. FL-20-000995)
v. OPINION JEWEL BIANCA FREEMAN,
Appellant.
THE COURT* APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Stanislaus County. Jack M. Jacobson, Judge. Jewel Bianca Freeman, in pro. per., for Appellant. No response for Respondent. -ooOoo-
* Before Levy, Acting P. J., Meehan, J. and DeSantos, J.
Appellant Jewel Bianca Freeman (mother) challenges the decision in the trial court ordering her to pay $537 monthly in child support for her three children with Edward Sheldon Freeman (father) and denying her request for attorney’s fees. Our review of the record and the relevant legal standards leads us to conclude the decision of the trial court must be upheld. The order is affirmed. PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL SUMMARY The record on appeal consists of a clerk’s transcript containing some of the documents filed in the trial court addressing the request to modify child support, and a settled statement prepared in lieu of a reporter’s transcript. On August 23, 2021, mother filed a request for an order seeking child support for her three children and attorney’s fees. This is the first document we are provided in a proceeding that was initiated in April 2020 by father with a petition for dissolution of marriage. In the income and expense declaration supporting the request, mother states she was employed between May 2020 and January 2021, but now earns “$0” per week. Mother further stated she shares 50/50 custody of the children with father. Mother’s request for attorney’s fees was for future fees she anticipated incurring while litigating this matter. In response to mother’s request for an order, father submitted his own income and expense declaration. Father listed his average monthly income as approximately $3,300 with monthly expenses of approximately $3,500. Seven weeks of pay stubs were also provided to support the estimate of his monthly income. Father stated in a declaration that the children were with him 85 percent of the time, and with their mother just 15 percent of the time. Father also stated in a separate declaration that as of September 9, 2021, he had been awarded sole legal and physical custody of the children with mother having the right to visit two nights per week and two weekends per month. Following a hearing held in October 2021, the trial court entered an order directing mother to pay father $537 in monthly child support. The court also denied her request for
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)