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

California Court of Appeal Jul 11, 2024 No. D082521AUnpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the trial court's order, holding that the appellant failed to meet her burden of demonstrating reversible error regarding the denial of her request for sanctions under Family Code section 271.

Issues

Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying the appellant's request for sanctions under Family Code section 271.
Whether the appellant met her burden of demonstrating reversible error on appeal.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“L.R. has failed to meet her affirmative burden on appeal to demonstrate reversible error with respect to the court’s order denying her request for section 271 sanctions.”

“L.R. fails to provide any argument as to how the trial court abused its discretion in denying her request for an award of sanctions against K.A.”

Filed 6/7/24 Marriage of L.R. and K.A. CA4/1 Reposting correct version NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

K.A. et al.,

Respondents.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Victor N. Pippins, Judge. Affirmed. L.R., 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

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

AI Brief

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

BUCHANAN, J.

AI Brief