Marriage of L.R. and K.A. CA4/1

Filed 6/7/24 Marriage of L.R. and K.A. CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

In re the Marriage of L.R. and K.A. D082521 L.R.,

Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. D557861)

v.

K.A. et al.,

Respondents.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Victor N. Pippins, Judge. Affirmed. Leila Rhodes, in pro. per., for Appellant. No appearance for Respondents.

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 L.R. appeals from the family court’s April 12, 2023 findings and order after hearing (FOAH), in which the court made several rulings, including: (1) K.A. was not in violation of “any order related to conjoint therapy”; (2) L.R. did not meet her burden of proof that K.A. “in any way thwarted conjoint therapy” with the parties’ child; (3) refusing to “modify the conjoint

therapy order”; (4) denying L.R.’s request for Family Code2 section 271 sanctions; and (5) authorizing minor’s counsel to obtain a copy of a report from a yet-to-be held conjoint therapy session and making that report available to K.A. Because it was not clear from L.R.’s June 5, 2023 notice of appeal what issues and/or rulings from the FOAH she is appealing, this court directed her to file a letter brief to (1) clarify what issues and/or rulings she is appealing from the FOAH; and (2) explain whether such issues and/or rulings constitute a final appealable order under Code of Civil Procedure section 904.1, subdivision (a). L.R. complied. On September 18, 2023, after considering her letter brief, this court issued an order concluding her appeal to the FOAH “is limited solely to the trial court’s denial of her request for sanctions under Family Code section 271.” (Italics added.) (See Lester v. Lennane (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 536, 564 [an order denying attorney fees is appealable as an order directing the payment of money because “the moving party has in effect been directed to