Marriage of Freeman CA5

Filed 6/21/23 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, F085156

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. Edward Sheldon Freeman, in pro. per., for Respondent. -ooOoo-

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

Appellant Jewel Bianca Freeman (mother) alleges the trial court erred when it failed to consider a doctor’s note she presented addressing her ability to work and care for her children at various hearings considering child custody and support. Mother further contends this error is evidence of the court’s bias and unfairness, resulting in a violation of her due process rights. While we affirm the judgment entered below, we have chosen to address additional procedural questions connected to mother’s appeal. PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL SUMMARY1 In March 2021, mother and Edward Sheldon Freeman (father) dissolved their marriage and became subject to a child custody order granting both parents joint legal and physical custody of their three children, who at the time were between the ages of five and two. While the children lived primarily with their father, mother’s designated time with her children consisted of at least two weekends a month, and each weekday between 5:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. In June 2021, father sought to modify the order, arguing mother was inconsistent with her periods of custody, and would not take the children for overnight visits. The trial court referred the matter for a Family Court Services evaluation in August 2021, and while that was pending, modified the custody order by shortening mother’s weekends with her children and specifying that she would receive midweek visits on Tuesdays and Thursdays between 5:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. The completed evaluation eventually recommended father be granted sole legal and physical custody, and that mother’s right to visitation continue as modified in August 2021. When mother objected to the recommendation, the court set the case for a “long cause hearing” and continued the current custody order. During the hearing held over one year later on October 11, 2022, mother testified that she wanted 50/50 custody of the children to be restored. Father testified that after the