Taylor v. Valdez CA5

Filed 3/5/24 Taylor v. Valdez 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

MICHELLE TAYLOR, F084884 Plaintiff and Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. S1501PT34263) v. OPINION DANNY VALDEZ,

Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. Raymonda B. Marquez, Judge. Roger I. Stein for Plaintiff and Appellant. Danny Valdez, in pro. per., for Defendant and Respondent. -ooOoo-

INTRODUCTION This case involves an appeal following an order of contempt in favor of respondent Danny Valdez and against appellant Michelle Taylor. Appellant argues the

trial court lacked substantial evidence to justify the order of contempt. As explained below, however, we have no jurisdiction to consider this appeal, and therefore dismiss it.1 BACKGROUND The underlying matter here is a family law case that has apparently been ongoing for some time. Respondent filed an order to show cause and affidavit for contempt, alleging appellant failed to abide by one of the court’s prior orders: namely, an order from September 18, 2018, that the couple’s children be placed on appellant’s health insurance, rather than respondent’s. Respondent initially sought 27 counts of contempt— one for each month appellant had failed to follow the court’s order—but counts 1, 26, and 27 were dismissed prior to the court trial. Respondent testified appellant had previously advised the court she had insurance through her job with the Department of Defense and it was available to cover the children.2 Respondent was also employed by the Department of Defense, and the children were on his health insurance. Evidence was introduced by respondent showing appellant had asserted she would never provide health insurance for the children. Appellant’s defense was that she could not provide health insurance for the children, because they were already enrolled on respondent’s health insurance, and the federal government will not support dual coverage of the children of two employees. According to appellant, she contacted respondent asking him to drop the children from his insurance so she could add them to hers. Appellant testified respondent refused to