Hernandez v. Jacobo CA5

Filed 10/26/22 Hernandez v. Jacobo 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

ADRIAN RENE HERNANDEZ, F083097 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. FL-19-002300) v.

IRMA JACOBO, OPINION Defendant and Respondent;

CRYSTAL MONTOYA,

Objector and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Stanislaus County. Jack M. Jacobson, Judge. No response for Plaintiff and Respondent. No response for Defendant and Respondent. Crystal Montoya, in pro. per., for Objector and Appellant. -ooOoo-

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

Appellant Crystal Montoya challenges the trial court’s decision denying her request for court-ordered visitation as a grandparent. Based on the record that has been provided to this court on appeal, we cannot reverse the decision of the trial court. The order denying appellant court-ordered visitation is affirmed. PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL SUMMARY Appellant entered this action between her son, Adrian Rene Hernandez (father), and the mother of his child, Irma Jacobo (mother), who were not married, but seeking to resolve custody and support issues involving their son. While appellant appeared to have sought some form of ex parte relief in August 2020, we have only been provided with a declaration filed with the trial court in February 2021, in which she explains her desire to be granted some form of visitation as a grandparent of the child. The declaration provides information on the relationship between appellant and mother, and some history surrounding her contact with her grandchild. Also in support of her request, appellant has provided text messages initiated by mother who was attempting to arrange a visit between her son, the grandchild, and appellant.1 Following a hearing on June 30, 2021, the trial court issued an order stating, “[a]ll contact with the child and paternal grandmother shall be at the discretion [of] the mother.”2 Appellant filed a notice of appeal challenging this order on July 22, 2021. DISCUSSION I. The Record on Appeal Limits Our Review “If an appellant intends to raise any issue that requires consideration of the oral proceedings in the superior court, the record on appeal must include a record of these oral proceedings .…” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.120(b).) A record of the lower court