Marriage of Gethin CA1/5

Filed 12/14/23 Marriage of Gethin CA1/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

In re the Marriage of AURORA and SHAUN GETHIN.

AURORA GETHIN, Appellant, A168083 v. SHAUN GETHIN, (Alameda County Respondent. Super. Ct. No. HF18890606)

MEMORANDUM OPINION On March 27, 2023, the trial court issued a child custody order denying the request of appellant Aurora Gethin (mother) to receive two additional days of custody each month of the five minor children she shares with her former spouse, respondent Shaun Gethin (father).1 Mother has filed an

1 Under the governing custody order, the parents share legal and

physical custody of the children. However, father has primary custody of the children during the week while mother has custody from 9 a.m. Wednesday to 9 a.m. Saturday. Mother’s unsuccessful request, the subject of this appeal, sought additional custody of the children two Saturday overnights each month. We decline to recite the full factual and procedural background of this case for purposes of this opinion because the opinion is unpublished and the parties know or should know the case’s underlying facts and procedural history. (People v. Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847, 851 [unpublished

1

opening brief in propria persona in which she challenges this order on the grounds that the trial court failed to adequately consider the children’s best interest, improperly modified an earlier court order by a different family court judge regarding how parents were to select a coparenting counselor, and failed to order a follow-up hearing to address ongoing issues relating to the children’s custody and the parties’ participation in coparent counseling. Father declined to file a respondent’s brief. Having reviewed the relevant record, we now affirm. On March 3, 2023, the parties met separately with the court-appointed mediator, Supervising Family Court Counselor Shamont Hussey, LCSW, to discuss several issues, including the parties’ inability to decide on a coparent counselor, mother’s request for two additional days of custody each month, and mother’s concerns regarding the parties’ eldest son’s refusal to abide by the court order that he spend more than half the week at father’s home due to what mother deemed the combative nature of the father–son relationship. The mediator subsequently issued a report in which he recommended no change to the current custody schedule due to the children’s need for consistency and predictability. The mediator further recommended that the custody schedule be reconsidered once parents completed six coparent counseling sessions, noting that any schedule change should occur during an extended break from school, such as winter or summer break, to avoid undue disruption to the children’s schedule. Finally, with respect to the strained relationship between father and the eldest son, the mediator recommended that the child be encouraged but not forced to abide by the court-ordered