Placer County Dept. of Child Support Services v. Barnes CA3

Filed 6/15/23 Placer County Dept. of Child Support Services v. Barnes CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Placer) ----

PLACER COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILD C095703 SUPPORT SERVICES, (Super. Ct. No. SFS0027167) Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

TROY BARNES,

Defendant and Respondent;

REBEKAH LYNN PASCIUTI,

Appellant.

Rebekah Lynn Pasciuti, representing herself, appeals from a final order establishing custody and visitation for the minor child Pasciuti shares with respondent Troy Barnes. Appellant Pasciuti filed a lengthy opening brief expressing her frustration

1

with respondent, the trial court, and the judicial process. She has failed to meet her burden to show error on appeal; accordingly, we affirm the order. BACKGROUND The parties were never married to each other and had a child together, now age 10. In June 2020, appellant filed a request for order in the trial court, seeking to modify custody, visitation, and child support. She requested sole physical custody of the child, with visitation and joint legal custody to Barnes. This was a change from the existing order, which had given Barnes “temporary physical custody” of the child. The family court heard appellant’s request for an order on July 6, 2021. Appellant and Barnes were present; neither was represented by counsel. At the hearing, the court heard testimony from appellant, Barnes, and two witnesses presented by Barnes. The court also considered its own record along with written evidence. There was a mediator’s report with recommendations regarding custody, but the report was not received into evidence, so the court did not consider it. In summarizing the evidence, the family court found appellant was currently living in California with the father of her second child. Their relationship included “events of domestic violence,” and appellant was without support from her own family. Barnes, however, had “close and extensive family support.” He had been living in Arizona with the child; he had “adequate living arrangements,” kept the child in school, and was able to support the child financially. The court determined it was in the child’s best interest to live with Barnes and awarded him sole physical and legal custody. The family court established a visitation plan for appellant that included visitation in her own home for 30 days in the upcoming summer and two weeks during the Christmas holiday. Further, appellant was permitted to visit the child in Arizona as often as she would like, for no more than four days at a time, providing she gave Barnes sufficient (10 days) notice.