Marriage of Meyer CA1/3

Filed 3/26/13 Marriage of Meyer CA1/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE

In re the Marriage of DAVID C. MEYER and WENDY M. MEYER.

DAVID C. MEYER, Appellant, v. A135051 WENDY M. MEYER, (Alameda County Respondent. Super. Ct. No. HF10548203)

Following a court trial conducted over six days, respondent Wendy Meyer was awarded sole legal and physical custody of the parties’ two daughters. Her estranged husband, David Meyer, appeals from the custody judgment.1 He argues that the evidence did not support vesting Wendy with sole custody of the girls and that the trial court was biased against him. He also argues the wrong form was used when the court expressed its custody determination in a judgment. None of his arguments have merit. The court’s custody determination was supported by evidence that David had inflicted physical abuse on Wendy and that David did not sustain his burden to show that, irrespective of such abuse, joint legal and physical custody of the girls was in their best interest. David has failed to demonstrate that the trial court was biased against him, and

1 In the interests of clarity and brevity, we will refer to the parties by their first names. We mean no disrespect.

1

the fact that the court recorded its custody determination in a judgment and reserved jurisdiction over possible dissolution of the marriage was not error. The judgment is affirmed. FACTUAL AND LEGAL BACKGROUND Wendy and David met in 1999 and were married in 2000. They had two daughters aged 10 and 4 in November 2010, when David petitioned the superior court for exclusive legal and physical custody of them with visiting rights for Wendy. A hearing on his petition was set for March 2011. In early December 2010, Wendy moved out of the family home in Castro Valley, disenrolled the girls from school, and moved with them to her mother’s apartment in Fairfield. David considered the girls’ living arrangement in Fairfield with Wendy’s mother inappropriate, and suggested they were subjected to improper influences of Wendy’s mother and her boyfriend. While he acknowledged that Wendy provided the girls with adequate food and clothing, David was concerned that their 10-year-old daughter was engaged in self-abusive behavior and that he was not notified whenever the girls needed medical attention. He also had concerns about Wendy’s removal of the girls from their school and church community in Castro Valley. David denied that he was ever physically abusive or hit Wendy during their marriage. But there were two occasions in particular, one in 2002 and another in March 2008, when he was forced to physically defend himself from her attacks. According to David, Wendy was the physical aggressor in the incident of March 2008 just like she had been at other times during their marriage, and all he had done was try to defend himself. Wendy testified that David was the aggressor in physical confrontations between the two in 2002 and in March 2008, and on many other occasions during their marriage. Wendy’s testimony regarding the 2008 incident was corroborated by an Alameda County deputy sheriff who had responded to the Meyers’ apartment after his office received a call from David. The deputy interviewed Wendy and their 10-year-old daughter and arrested David based upon his investigation. Their 10-year-old daughter generally corroborated her mother’s version of events, and Wendy had injuries the deputy considered to be consistent with a victim of domestic violence.