Thompson v. Krippendorf CA1/5

Filed 6/25/13 Thompson v. Krippendorf CA1/5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

TANYA THOMPSON, Plaintiff and Appellant, A136031 v. BRIAN KRIPPENDORF, (Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No. D0901592) Defendant and Respondent.

Tanya Thompson (appellant), formerly known as Tanya Nemick, appeals from the trial court’s orders granting the motion of Brian Krippendorf (respondent) as to child support and denying the request of appellant to modify custody and visitation. We affirm the child support order but remand for reconsideration of appellant’s request regarding custody and visitation under the proper standards. BACKGROUND Appellant and respondent have two children together, boys born in April 2006 and January 2008. Appellant filed a complaint to establish respondent’s parental relationship in March 2009; appellant requested joint legal custody and sole physical custody of the children. In July 2009, the trial court awarded temporary physical custody to appellant, and respondent was permitted visitation and ordered to pay child support. Court orders in September and October 2009 made some adjustments to respondent’s visitation and

1

provided for limited weekend custody. The October order directed, “There shall be a full custody evaluation for the minor children.” Following a December 2009 hearing, the court appointed Dr. Nancy Olesen under Evidence Code section 730 to conduct an expert child custody evaluation. In September 2010, Dr. Olesen produced a detailed report and recommended that custody be awarded to respondent. Among other things, she opined appellant was suffering from a “delusional disorder” that resulted in appellant making various unfounded accusations regarding respondent. On September 16, 2010, in light of Dr. Olesen’s report, the trial court awarded “temporary” physical custody of the children to respondent and permitted appellant to have supervised visitation, pending a recommendation conference. In November 2010, the parties agreed to a stipulated order on custody and visitation. The stipulated order largely adopted Dr. Olesen’s recommendations. Among other things, respondent was awarded sole physical custody, appellant was limited to supervised visitation one day a week, and appellant agreed to receive therapy and attend parenting classes. The trial court made the stipulated agreement an order of the court. In October 2011, the trial court entered as an order of the court a stipulation providing, among other things, that the parties had shared responsibility for the children’s preschool and daycare expenses, therapy expenses, and unreimbursed health care expenses. The court reserved jurisdiction over child support, effective January 1, 2011. In February 2012, respondent filed a motion seeking, among other things, child support starting in January 2011 and arrearages for the children’s child care, therapy, and medical expenses. In April 2012, appellant requested modification of the trial court’s custody and visitation order; she requested joint physical custody and unsupervised visitation. Following a hearing in August 2012, the trial court issued an order that, among other things, directed appellant to pay off arrearages for child support and other expenses at a rate of $200 per month, and directed her to pay $1,322 per month in child support