Filed 7/17/24 Moran v. Palacios CA2/7

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SEVEN

MICHAEL MORAN,

Appellant,

v.

VICTORIA PALACIOS,

Respondent.

 B321062

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. PD052806)

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of 

Los Angeles County, Robert E. Sanchez DuFour, Judge. 

Affirmed.

Michael Moran, in pro. per., for Appellant.

No appearance by Respondent.

________________________
2

INTRODUCTION

Michael Moran (Father) appeals from a postjudgment 

custody order modifying a previous custody order regarding his 

daughter, Jessica. The order from which Father appeals granted

Victoria Palacios (Mother) sole physical custody of Jessica and 

sole legal custody for the purpose of making decisions regarding 

Jessica’s medical and mental health needs. Father has not met 

his burden of demonstrating the family law court erred, and we 

affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Jessica was born in 2007. In 2011, Father filed for 

dissolution of his marriage with Mother. The parties then 

engaged in an extended custody dispute, in which the family law 

court observed that “the Parties have been in conflict since the 

birth of the Minor Child, and have demonstrated a complete 

inability to co-parent or co-exist.”

In the 2014 judgment of dissolution, Father was awarded 

sole physical and legal custody of Jessica with visitation for 

Mother. Throughout her elementary school years, Jessica lived

with Father during the school week and visited with Mother on

weekends and certain holidays. Mother and Father each sought 

modification of the custody order after the 2014 judgment at 

various times. In 2017, Mother sought joint physical and legal 

custody of Jessica. In 2018, Father requested permission to move 

to Oregon. In 2019, Mother again sought modification of the 

custody orders, seeking sole physical custody of Jessica. The 

family court granted Mother temporary physical custody in 2020

and made this order permanent in 2022. These orders are the 

subject of this appeal.
3

A. December 2020 Hearing

On December 15, 2020, the court (Judge Joshua Wayser)

conducted an evidentiary hearing regarding Mother’s request for

modification of the custody order for Jessica, who was then 

13 years old and in middle school. A court-appointed interviewer

testified regarding her conversations with Jessica and a social 

worker from the Los Angeles County Department of Children and 

Family Services (Department). 

Jessica told the interviewer she no longer wanted to live 

with Father due to his angry outbursts. Once, Father pulled her 

hair, yelled at her, and pushed her against the wall. According to 

Jessica, Father sometimes threw her phone into the neighbor’s 

yard, threw her clothes on the roof of their home, locked her 

things in his car, and used scissors to destroy her clothing when 

he was angry with her. She informed the interviewer, “when he 

gets mad, he throws stuff or he kicks the wall, and he throws 

containers of food at me or water bottles.” Jessica stated she 

cried and felt scared when he acted like this. When asked what 

Father did in response to her crying, Jessica responded, he would 

yell “‘a lot more,’” demand she stop crying, and throw out more of 

her things.

Jessica recounted an incident when Father tried to take her 

phone, “grabbing both of [her] arms, and [she] ended up getting 

cuts and scratches on [her] hands from his nails.” In the previous 

two months, Jessica stated she called the police twice about 

Father, and Mother also called the police twice.

Jessica reported that Father disparaged her and Mother,

questioned their intelligence, and referred to them using ugly 

epithets. Jessica further related: “‘he will say stuff like, quote, 

your mom ruined my life, unquote.’” Jessica stated that Father

believed Mother was “crazy and will never care about [Jessica] 

like [he] do[es].” Jessica declared at the end of the interview,
4

“‘I’m not going back to my dad’s house. I refuse to go back to my 

dad’s house.’”

The interviewer also spoke with a social worker from the 

Department, who at the time was investigating a referral 

relating to Father’s reported emotional abuse and general 

neglect. The social worker informed the interviewer that she 

spoke with Mother and Father at their respective homes. Father 

admitted to the social worker he took Jessica’s shoes and clothes 

and threw her things on the roof. Father also admitted he 

slapped Jessica once. The social worker stated she believed

Father’s behavior towards Jessica was “immature” and “an 

inappropriate parenting style.”

Father testified at the hearing that Jessica had only 

recently changed her mind about living with him. He suggested 

he had recordings of her saying she was glad she went with him. 

He believed Mother had been leading Jessica to mistrust him for

years. He nevertheless admitted to the court he threw Jessica’s 

phone in the neighbor’s yard and threw her clothes on the roof. 

He told the court Jessica had said she would lie about him to get 

him to stop taking her things.

The court acknowledged the long history of the case, 

including that a child evaluator made adverse findings against 

Mother in 2013, which led to Father gaining custody of Jessica. 

The court noted the parents’ long-standing animosity and the 

resulting “messy” record in which Mother and Father each 

accused the other of abuse.

The court temporarily granted Mother sole physical custody

because Jessica needed time away from the conflict between the 

parents and from her conflict with Father. Legal custody 

remained joint. Father was granted visitation on Saturdays. The 

court further ordered the parties to return in six months for a 
5

status hearing and for the court to consider further changes to 

the custody order.

B. May 2021 and September 2021 Hearings

On May 18, 2021, the parties appeared before Judge Robert 

Sanchez DuFour for the scheduled status hearing. Father

explained his circumstances had changed since December so he 

was less stressed and better able to care for Jessica. He was 

accepted to a master’s degree program for landscape architecture 

and had found work. Father contended Mother was keeping 

Jessica from visiting or speaking with him.

Mother’s counsel confirmed there had been very little 

visitation with Father in the intervening five months due to

Jessica’s refusal to speak to or visit with Father. Mother testified 

Jessica told her of suicidal ideation while she lived with Father

but indicated Jessica did not feel the same after moving in with 

Mother. Mother also reported Father obstructed her attempts to 

seek gynecological care and mental health services for Jessica.

The court appointed minor’s counsel to represent Jessica’s 

interests, and it ordered the parties to coordinate therapy for 

Jessica by providing the names of two psychologists or 

psychiatrists to minor’s counsel. The court also ordered Mother 

to encourage Jessica to visit with Father but did not otherwise 

change the existing visitation schedule. During the court’s 

ruling, Father began to call Mother names in open court and

accused her of lying. The court noted Father’s outburst for the 

record and observed the court bailiff had to stand between Father 

and Mother. Although Father did not leave his seat, he was 

pointing and yelling at Mother.

The parties appeared before Judge DuFour again on 

September 14, 2021. Minor’s counsel confirmed the dysfunction 

between the parents and explained the process of getting Jessica 
6

into therapy was in the preliminary stages. Father again stated 

Mother was keeping Jessica from him. The court continued the 

hearing to January 25, 2022 to allow Jessica to begin therapy.

C. January 2022 Hearing

On January 25, 2022, the parties again appeared before 

Judge DuFour for the evidentiary hearing. The court noted 

Mother and Father had both filed requests for orders to modify 

child custody and visitation, and Father had filed a request for an 

order for Jessica to attend therapy in the interim. The court 

indicated it would issue permanent custody and visitation orders

after the hearing.

Minor’s counsel advised the court that “for about eight 

months now we have been going around in circles trying to find a 

therapist for this child.” On November 1, 2021, minor’s counsel 

informed the parties by email that he had selected a therapist 

pursuant to the authority granted to him by the court. Although 

he had confirmed with the therapist that she would accept the 

case before sending the email to the parties, counsel later 

received an email the same day from the therapist indicating she 

was no longer comfortable working on the case. The therapist 

said: “I got two long voice mails from Michael Moran today 

stating that he does not want Jessica to work with me. He was 

very adamant about this for a multitude of reasons. He sounded 

very upset and agitated. I know I need the respect and 

cooperation of both parents to successfully treat a child.”

Jessica’s counsel described Father as “incessant” and 

agreed with Jessica’s description that he was “intense.” Counsel 

stated Jessica was “over this” and “fed up.” She did not want to 

see Father or speak with him. For these reasons, minor’s counsel 

believed it was in Jessica’s best interest for Mother to receive sole 

legal custody for the purpose of selecting and implementing 
7

therapy for Jessica. Minor’s counsel additionally recommended 

permanent orders be issued without another evidentiary hearing 

to avoid further disturbing Jessica.

Father, under oath, explained to the court he opposed the 

therapist selected by minor’s counsel because Jessica would 

attend sessions virtually, not in person. Father believed Mother 

would interfere with the therapy sessions, as she had in the past, 

and tell Jessica what to say. Father set out the reasons for his 

rejection of the therapists suggested by Mother or minor’s 

counsel, including that they were not licensed and he could not 

afford them. Father believed he should have custody because 

Jessica had told him Mother gets angry more easily than he did. 

During cross-examination by Mother’s counsel, Father admitted 

allegations of emotional abuse were substantiated against him by 

the Department.

Mother testified, also under oath, that Father refused to 

cooperate to get Jessica medical attention for an ovarian cyst and 

delayed her treatment by one month, telling Mother she should 

be seeing a natural health expert. Mother also testified Father

would agree to pay for a therapist, leading Mother to gather the

necessary information, but he ultimately would renege on the 

promise. Although the court had ordered the therapist’s rate 

could not exceed $175 per hour, Father refused to pay more than 

$120 per hour. Father cross-examined Mother extensively about 

her claims against him, focusing on what documentary evidence 

Mother had to support her claims and her attempts to keep 

Jessica away from him. Father argued Mother did not care about 

Jessica’s health because Mother cancelled Jessica’s umbilical cord 

storage.

Relying on the findings made by Judge Wayser after the 

December 15, 2020 hearing, Father’s conduct at the May 18, 2021 

hearing, and the testimony described above, the court made the 
8

following permanent custody order on April 13, 2022: (1) it 

granted Mother sole legal custody for the purpose of making 

decisions regarding Jessica’s medical and mental health needs; 

(2) it ordered Jessica to be seen by a psychologist or licensed 

mental health professional at a cost of no more than $175 per 

session; (3) it granted joint legal custody for all other purposes; 

and (4) it granted Mother sole physical custody of Jessica.

Father timely appealed on April 29, 2022.1

DISCUSSION

Father primarily challenges the sufficiency of the evidence 

supporting the court’s custody ruling. He also contends the trial 

court denied him a full and fair opportunity to present his case at 

the January 25, 2022 evidentiary hearing. Mother, through 

counsel, advised this Court she would not file a respondent’s 

brief. We decide the appeal based on the record, the opening 

brief, and any oral argument by Father. (Cal. Rules of Court, 

rule 8.220(a)(2); see In re Marriage of Mathews (2005) 

133 Cal.App.4th 624, 626.) Although Mother did not present 

arguments supporting the challenged order, as the appellant 

1 Father also appealed from Judge Wayser’s December 16, 

2020 minute order issued after the December 15 hearing. We 

dismiss the appeal from the December 16, 2020 minute order 

because this order is a nonappealable temporary custody order. 

(See Smith v. Smith (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 1074, 1090; see also 

Walker v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation 

Authority (2005) 35 Cal.4th 15, 20 [“‘When a party appeals from 

both appealable and nonappealable orders, courts in this state 

regularly dismiss the appeal from the latter order.’”].)
9

Father has the burden to demonstrate the court committed error 

and that such error prejudiced him. (See In re Marriage of Knox

(2022) 83 Cal.App.5th 15, 40; see also Century Surety Co. v. 

Polisso (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 922, 963.)

A. The Law Governing Child Custody

“Under California’s statutory scheme governing child 

custody and visitation determinations, the overarching concern is 

the best interest of the child.” (Montenegro v. Diaz (2001) 

26 Cal.4th 249, 255 (Montenegro); Fam. Code, §§ 3011, 3040.)2 In 

determining the best interest of the child, section 3011 directs the 

court to consider “all relevant factors, including the child’s 

health, safety, and welfare, any history of abuse by one parent 

against any child or the other parent, and the nature and amount 

of the child’s contact with the parents.” (In re Marriage of Brown 

& Yana (2006) 37 Cal.4th 947, 955-956; § 3011.) The court must 

also consider and give due weight to the wishes of a child 

regarding custody and visitation when the child has reached a 

“sufficient age and capacity to reason so as to form an intelligent 

preference.” (§ 3042, subd. (a).)

Where, as here, the family court has entered a final custody 

order reflecting the best interest of the child, the court should 

preserve “‘the established mode of custody unless some 

significant change in circumstances indicates that a different 

arrangement would be in the child’s best interest.’” (Montenegro, 

supra, 26 Cal.4th at p. 256.) The party seeking the modification 

2 All further section references are to the Family Code unless 

otherwise specified.
10

bears the burden to demonstrate the change in circumstances. 

(See ibid.)

We review a family court’s custody and visitation orders, 

including modification orders, for abuse of discretion. (See 

Montenegro, supra, 26 Cal.4th at p. 255.) We apply the 

substantial evidence standard to the court’s factual findings.

(See In re Marriage of Burgess (1996) 13 Cal.4th 25, 32; In re 

Marriage of Fajota (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 1487, 1497.)

B. Substantial Evidence Supports the Court’s Order

Father’s opening brief sets out the extensive history of the 

proceedings and the events underlying the parents’ custody 

dispute. Father only briefly addresses his principal argument 

that insufficient evidence supports the family court’s April 2022

permanent custody order, and does not provide record citations 

supporting his argument. By way of example, Father contends 

that, “[r]ecent therapist summaries and respondent emails show 

mother[’s] continuing uncooperativeness, deceitfulness, and 

negligence in Minor’s treatment. They show mother unwilling to 

bring the minor to therapy or pay for it. They show her lying 

about taking the minor to therapy unilaterally; that she whispers 

to the minor during phone therapy. It shows her unwilling to 

share a therapist summary she attained illegally against court 

order which contradicts with the official summary. This list goes 

on.” But there are no citations to the record, dates, or other 

information that would allow us to identify the documents Father 

relies upon.

3 (See In re S.C. (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 396, 406 

3 In the factual section of his opening brief, Father specifies 

that therapist summaries may be found in 13 pages of the clerk’s
11

[“When an appellant’s brief makes no reference to the pages of 

the record where a point can be found, an appellate court need 

not search through the record in an effort to discover the point 

purportedly made.”]; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(C) 

[appellate brief must “[s]upport any reference to a matter in the 

record by a citation to the volume and page number of the record 

where the matter appears”].) 

Father cites four cases regarding the substantial evidence

standard of review. (See People v. Fudge (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1075, 

1100 [the appellate court’s review for sufficiency of evidence 

requires that all reasonable inferences be drawn in support of the 

judgment, but the court must also consider the entire record, 

including evidence unfavorable to the judgment]; People v. 

Johnson (1980) 26 Cal.3d 557, 577 [the appellate court must 

review the whole record to determine whether there is 

substantial evidence to support the trial court’s findings]; In re 

Marriage of Mix (1975) 14 Cal.3d 604, 614 [the appellate court 

must consider all the evidence, not just that which supports the 

respondent’s case, and must affirm the judgment if it is 

transcript. The cited pages include 10 letters from various 

treatment programs that have provided mental health services to 

Jessica from 2012 to 2021. These letters do not support Father’s 

contention that Mother was negligent, deceitful, or 

uncooperative. 

During oral argument, Father cited additional pages in the 

record to support his contention that Mother refused to pay for 

Jessica’s therapy and interfered with his relationship with 

Jessica. But our review of these documents indicates they do not 

support Father’s contentions.
12

supported by substantial evidence].)4 But Father’s opening brief 

does not present any cognizable argument showing the evidence 

before the family court was insufficient to support its custody 

order, nor does he demonstrate prejudicial error that would allow 

us to reverse the family court’s order. (See F.P. v. Monier (2017) 

3 Cal.5th 1099, 1107 [the California Constitution permits 

reversal only if an error “‘resulted in a miscarriage of justice’”]; 

Cal. Const., Art. VI, § 13.) 

Because the trial court’s order is presumptively correct (see 

Jameson v. Desta (2018) 5 Cal.5th 594, 609), and Father failed to 

provide any reasoned argument challenging the court’s order, 

supported by citations to the record and applicable legal 

authorities, he has forfeited or abandoned his arguments.

5 (See 

In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, 954 [if appellant fails to raise 

4 Father also cites In re Michael G. (1988) 44 Cal.3d 283 for 

the proposition that “the failure to consider all relevant evidence 

is an abuse of discretion and can be grounds for reversal on 

appeal.” But In re Michael G. does not stand for this proposition. 

Instead, that case decided whether a minor made a ward of the 

court may be punished with confinement in a secured facility 

during non-school hours for willful disobedience of a juvenile 

court order to attend school. (See id. at p. 287.) In re Michael G. 

does not contain a reference to an abuse of discretion standard.

5 We recognize Father is self-represented, and whenever 

possible, we will not strictly apply technical rules of procedures or 

substantive law to deprive a self-represented litigant of a 

hearing. Nevertheless, we must apply the procedural and 

substantive principles and rules of appellate review to a selfrepresented litigant’s arguments on appeal, just as we would to 

arguments by litigants represented by attorneys. (See 

Rappleyea v. Campbell (1994) 8 Cal.4th 975, 984-985; In re 

Marriage of Furie (2017) 16 Cal.App.5th 816, 824.)
13

claims of reversible error, supported by argument and authority, 

he may be deemed to have abandoned his appeal]; Lee v. Kim

(2019) 41 Cal.App.5th 705, 721 [“our review is limited to those 

issues that have been adequately raised and supported in the 

appellant’s brief”]; see Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(B) 

[appellate brief must “support each point by argument and, if 

possible, by citation of authority”].)

But even examining Father’s arguments on the merits, the 

record before us demonstrates there is substantial evidence 

supporting the family court order. The record supports the 

family court’s conclusion that a significant change in 

circumstances indicates that a different custody arrangement 

would be in Jessica’s best interest. (See Montenegro, supra,

26 Cal.4th at p. 256.) Even accepting Father’s generally positive 

description of his relationship with Jessica during her elementary 

school years, there is ample evidence in the record that this 

relationship changed when she entered middle school. The 

record contains Father’s concessions that he took out his personal 

frustrations and stress on Jessica. This included throwing her 

phone into the neighbor’s backyard, throwing her clothes on to 

the roof, and slapping Jessica once. The Department, after its 

investigation, determined the emotional abuse allegations 

against Father were substantiated. The social worker found that 

Father’s behavior was “immature” and “inappropriate.” 

Additionally, Mother testified that Father delayed her attempts 

to obtain medical attention for Jessica’s ovarian cyst. Minor’s 

counsel described to the court how Father disrupted his selection 

of a therapist for Jessica.

Further, 13-year-old Jessica made her wishes known to the 

court-ordered interviewer in December 2020: she did not want to 
14

live with Father. In January 2022, minor’s counsel confirmed 

that Jessica did not want to speak to or visit with Father. Jessica 

had reached a sufficient age and capacity to form an intelligent 

preference under section 3042, which the trial court was required 

to take into account. This is substantial evidence of a significant 

change of circumstances and of Jessica’s best interests to support 

the family court’s order granting Mother sole physical custody of 

Jessica and sole legal custody for the purpose of making decisions 

regarding Jessica’s medical and mental health needs. 

C. The Record Reflects the Family Court Provided Father a 

Full and Fair Opportunity to Present His Case

Father also argues that he did not have the opportunity to 

present his case on January 25, 2022 because the court changed 

the hearing time from 1:30 p.m. to 9:30 a.m., depriving him of the 

ability to call his witnesses or to “organize.”

6 In particular, 

Father argues the family court: did not allow him to submit 

6 Father also contends the court erred when it refused to 

grant Father a continuance. But the record does not reflect 

Father asked for a continuance, nor does he demonstrate on 

appeal that good cause existed for a continuance. (Cal. Rules of 

Court, rule 3.1332(b) [a continuance may be granted only upon a 

showing of good cause, including the excusable unavailability of a 

party, witness, or trial counsel, or a party’s excused inability to 

obtain evidence, or a significant unanticipated change in the 

status of the case occurred].) Father appeared to believe the 

court would continue the hearing on its own and without any 

request from the parties because “we haven’t had a therapy [for 

Jessica] yet.” But, as noted, when the court stated it would 

proceed with the evidentiary hearing, Father did not ask for a 

continuance.
15

transcripts of recordings indicating Mother made Jessica hang up 

on him; could not find his declaration and the exhibits attached 

to his July 16, 2021 request for order, which he asserts were 

timely filed; and did not give him the opportunity to crossexamine Mother or minor’s counsel “after new allegations and 

subjects were brought up after lunch.”

As the California Supreme Court has recognized, although

“a party’s opportunity to call witnesses to testify and to proffer 

admissible evidence is central to having his or her day in court” 

(Elkins v. Superior Court (2007) 41 Cal.4th 1337, 1357 (Elkins)), 

a court has broad authority and a statutory duty to control the

proceedings before it, including the introduction and exclusion of 

evidence. (See Evid. Code, §§ 320, 352.) It is only when the court 

abuses this discretion “‘in such manner as to prevent a full and 

fair opportunity to the parties to present all competent, relevant, 

and material evidence bearing upon any issue properly presented 

for determination’” that a litigant’s due process rights are 

implicated. (Elkins, at p. 1357, italics omitted.) Absent the

denial of a party’s due process rights, “‘[n]o form of civil trial 

error justifies reversal . . . where in light of the entire record, 

there was no actual prejudice to the appealing party.’” (Cassim v. 

Allstate Ins. Co. (2004) 33 Cal.4th 780, 801.)

Father has forfeited this issue because he failed to present 

any cognizable argument demonstrating the family court erred or 

that such error prejudiced him. (See In re Sade C., supra, 

13 Cal.4th at p. 994; Lee v. Kim, supra, 41 Cal.App.5th at p. 721.)

Father, for example, does not identify which, if any, witnesses 

were available to testify in the afternoon of January 25, 2022 but 

not available in the morning. The record also indicates that

when the court asked Father whether he had any witnesses to 
16

testify at the hearing, Father said “no” and Father did not at that 

time state that any witnesses were unavailable due to the change 

in time.7 Nor does Father specify what new allegations were 

raised that he was prevented from addressing at the hearing, or 

what evidence was contained in his July 16, 2021 request for 

order that was material to the issues before the court in January 

2022.

But even reviewing Father’s arguments on the merits, the 

record reflects that Father received his day in court. At the 

beginning of the hearing, the court told Father, “[i]f you need a 

minute to organize your thoughts, it’s perfectly fine.” Later in 

the proceeding, the court gave Father additional time to make his 

case, accepted his time estimate for cross-examination of Mother, 

and later allowed him an additional 20 minutes to cross-examine 

her. It also did not hold Father to technical rules of procedure: it 

reviewed and marked Father’s exhibits even though minor’s 

counsel and Mother’s counsel did not have copies of them (it 

allowed counsel to review the documents); it told Father he could

call witnesses upon an offer of proof even though the docket did 

not show Father submitted a witness list; and it helped to clarify 

7 For the first time at oral argument, Father named three 

witnesses he represented would have been available to testify. 

But we decline to consider the availability of these witnesses 

because Father did not notify the trial court of their availability 

in January 2022, and because Father failed to identify them in 

his appellate briefing. (See In re Marriage of Falcone & Fyke

(2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 814, 826 [“Kathey had ample opportunity 

to raise the objection below. Her failure to do so deprived 

Richard of the chance to argue the issue or cure the alleged error 

and prevented the trial court from making any ruling on the 

point.”]; see also In re Sade C., supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 994.)
17

Father’s questions during his cross-examination of Mother to 

elicit relevant and admissible testimony. Based on the record 

before us, we cannot say the family court did not provide Father a 

full and fair opportunity to present his case.

DISPOSITION

The postjudgment custody order dated April 13, 2022 is 

affirmed. Father’s appeal from the temporary custody order 

dated December 16, 2020 is dismissed. 

MARTINEZ, P. J.

We concur:

SEGAL, J.

STONE, J.