Lee v. Pasulka CA2/6

Filed 2/26/27 Lee v. Pasulka CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

SARAA DORIS LEE, 2d Civil No. B320206 (Super. Ct. No. D401660) Plaintiff and Respondent, (Ventura County)

v.

TROY PASULKA,

Defendant and Appellant.

Troy Pasulka appeals from a child custody order awarding Saraa Lee sole custody of their daughter and determining Pasulka’s visitation rights. Pasulka contends the trial court should have granted him sole custody, erred in denying him attorney’s fees, and erred in denying sanctions against Lee. We affirm.1

1 We deny Pasulka’s motion to strike the respondent’s brief and request for sanctions.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Pasulka and Lee were previously in a relationship and had one daughter, T.P., together. In June 2021, Lee requested a domestic violence restraining order (DVRO) protecting her and T.P. from Pasulka. Lee also indicated she wanted a child custody and visitation order. At the DVRO hearing in November 2021, the parties presented evidence, including several videos and Pasulka’s testimony. The trial court denied the DVRO, finding Lee did not meet her burden of proof to support a DVRO pursuant to Family Code2 section 6320. However, the court temporarily granted sole legal and physical custody to Lee. As to Pasulka’s visitation rights, the court ordered supervised visits up to three times per week, up to an hour per visit in person or on Zoom, a video conferencing platform. T.P. was four years old at the time. The court explained that these visits would have to be supervised because Pasulka exhibited conduct over the course of the hearing that caused the court to be “concerned with the emotional well[-]being of [T.P.].” The court noted that one video reflected his “lack of emotional control and profanity in the presence of the child,” and showed that he “neglect[ed] that crying, screaming child, and took no action to stabilize the child.” The court further noted that Pasulka had said “harsh things” about Lee in the presence of T.P., which upset her greatly. The court stated that the finality of the temporary custody and visitation orders would depend on a future review hearing regarding compliance with the orders. The court instructed Pasulka that if he wanted “to evolve from sole legal and