1

Filed 4/4/ 23 Renee A. v. Robert A. CA2/2

N OT 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 TWO

RENEE A.,

Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.

ROBERT A.,

D efendant and Re spondent. B322245

(Los Angeles County

Super. Ct. No.

18WHPT00142)

ORDER MODIFY ING

OPINION

[NO CHANGE IN

JUDGMENT]

THE COURT:

It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on March 9 , 202 3

, be

modified a s follows:

On page 8, i n the first full paragraph

, after the seco nd sentence

,

we delete the citation s

, beginning “ ( See Ce lia S.

, supra , 3 Cal.App.5th at

pp. 663

– 664

. . . ” in their entirety, and the following citation s are

inserted in their place:2 (See Ce lia S.

, supra , 3 Cal.Ap p.5 th at pp. 663

– 664

[if section 3044 applies, maintaining a 50

- 50

custody arrangement is an abuse of discretion

unless the presumption has been a pplied a nd

reb utted]; § 3044, subds. (b)(2) [listing completion of

a batterer’s treatm ent progr am as a factor

sup porting rebuttal , not an exception to the

presumption’s application]

, (c) [ the presumption is

trigge red when “ [a] pers on is found by the court to

have

. . . engaged in behav ior

i nvolving

. . . hara ssing

. . . or dist urbing the pea ce

of ano ther ” ] ; Fajota

, su pra

, 230 Cal.App.4th at

p. 1498 [ the trial court is prohibited from

“‘ “ call[ing]

. . . into play ” the presumption contain ed

in section 3044 only when the court believes it is

appropriate ’ ”].)

There is no change in the judg ment.

___ _______________

_ _ ___________________________ _____________ ASHMANN

- GE RST, Act ing P. J. CHAVEZ, J. HOFF STADT, J.1

Filed 3/9/ 2 3 Renee A. v. Robert A. CA2/2 (unmodified opi nion)

NO T T O B E PUBLISHE D I N TH E OFFICIA L REPORTS

Califo r ni a R ule s o f C ourt

, r ul e 8

. 1115( a )

, pr o hib i t s c o urt s a n d p artie s f r o m c i ti ng o r rely i n g on opin i ons

no t c ertif i e d f o r publ i cat i o n o r o rdere d p ubl i sh e d

, exc e p t a s s p ecifie d b y ru l e 8 .1115( b )

. T hi s o pini on

ha s n o t bee n ce r tifie d fo r p u bli c atio n o r o r dere d publ i sh e d f o r purpo s es of rule 8.1115.

I N TH E COUR T O F APPEA L O F TH E STAT E O F CALIFORN I A

SECON D APPELLAT E DISTRICT

DIVISIO N TWO

RENE E A.,

Plaintif f an d Appel l ant,

v.

ROBER T A.,

De f e ndan t an d Re s p ondent. B322245

(Lo s Angele s Coun t

y Super

. Ct.

No

. 18WHPT00142)

APPEA L fro m a n orde r o f th e Superio r Cour t of

Lo s Angele s County

. Mari a Ma y J

. Santos

, Judge

. Reverse d and

remanded.

Fami l y V i olenc e Appella t e P r oject

, Cor y Hernandez,

Shura y Ghorishi

, Jenna f e r Dorfma n Wagner

, Er i n C

. Smi t h;

Sidle y Austi n LLP

, Davi d R

. Carpenter

, Sea n A

. Commons

, and

Nicol e M

. Baad e fo r Plaintif f an d Appe l lant.

N o appearanc e fo r Def e ndan t an d Respondent.2 Plaintif f an d appel l an t Rene e A

. (Renee ) appeal s fro m an

orde r grantin g he r ex

- b oyfriend

, defendan t an d respondent

Rober t A

. (Robert)

, join t phys i ca l an d lega l custod y o f thei r minor

so n despi t e find i ng tha t Rober t ha d committe d act s o f domestic

vio l en c e aga i nst he r

. 1 Rene e contend s tha t th e tria l cour t failed

to apply t he r ebuttable pre s u m p t ion s et forth in Family Code

sectio n 304 4 2 tha t i t i s no t i n a child’ s bes t interes t t o awar d joint

lega l and/o r physica l custod y t o a paren t w h o ha s bee n f o un d to

hav e committe d domesti c violenc e agains t hi s coparent

. Renee

als o challenge s th e tria l court’ s failur e t o conside r he r reques t for

chil d support.

W e revers e th e custod y orde r an d reman d th e matte r t o the

tria l cour t t o appl y th e mandator y presumptio n s et fort h in

sectio n 304 4 an d t o conside r Renee’ s reques t fo r chil d support

pursuan t t o sectio n 6341.

FACT S AN D PROCEDURA L BACKGROUND

I. Th e Family

Rene e an d Rober t we r e i n a seven

- yea r relationshi p that

ende d i n 201 8 (althoug h the y continue d t o liv e t o gethe r until

2021)

. The y shar e on e c h ild

, R.A

. (bor n Ma y 2012).

1 Be c au s e the parties have r equested that we ref r ain from

usin g t h e i r las t names

, w e r e fe r t o the m b y thei r firs t names

. No

disrespec t i s intended.

2 Al l furthe r statut o r y refe r ence s ar e t o t he Fami l y Code

un l ess othe r wise indica t ed.3

II. The Cus t ody Order

I n Ju l y 2018

, Rene e petitione d th e famil y cour t to

establis h a parenta l relation s h i p betwee n he r an d Robert

. 3

I n Septembe r an d Octobe r o f 2021

, Rene e file d tw o reque s ts

fo r a Domesti c Violenc e Restrainin g Orde r (DVRO ) against

Robert

, allegin g tha t h e ha d engage d i n a campa i g n of

ha r a ssmen t agains t her

. He r firs t reques t wa s dismisse d without

pre j udi c e o n pro c edura l g r ounds ; th e secon d wa s denie d afte r a

hearin g o n it s merits

, wit h th e tria l cour t concludin g tha t Renee

ha d no t sufficientl y establishe d harassmen t meritin g a

permanen t restrainin g order.

A t th e conclusio n o f th e hearin g o n t he secon d DVRO

request

, th e tria l cour t issue d a tempo r ar y custod y order

establishin g join t lega l custod y o f R.A.

, bu t givin g “primary

physica l custody ” t o Renee

. Th e tria l cour t directe d th e parents

t o communicat e wi t h on e anothe r onl y throug h Talkin g Parents,

an on

- line copa r e nting tool.

Rober t subsequentl y file d fo r join t physica l custod y o f R.A.,

arguin g tha t th e famil y “ha[d ] alway s live d t o g e ther ” an d that

R.A

. “ha[d ] a well

- establishe d relationshi p wit h both ” parents.

Renee oppo s ed the motion, rei t erating her con c erns about

Robert’ s conduc t toward s he r an d th e effec t i t wa s startin g to

hav e o n thei r son

. Sh e p r ov i d e d corroboratin g letter s fro m third

parties

, a s wel l a s Talkin g Parent s message s demonstratin g that

Rober t wa s misusin g th e ap p t o continu e harassin g her.

3 Neithe r paren t wa s repre s en t ed b y c o unse l a t an y o f the

follow i ng pro c eedings.4 O n De c embe r 15

, 2021

, Robert’ s custod y r e que s t proceeded

t o a hearing

. Th e tria l cour t admonishe d Rober t fo r misusing

Talkin g Parents

, bu t ultimatel y conclude d tha t Rene e “ha[d]n’t

presente d anythin g tha t wou l d cau s e m e t o believ e tha t it’ s no t in

[R.A.]’ s bes t interes t t o d o som e kin d o f 50

- 5 0 [custody]

arrangement. ” Accordingly

, th e tria l cour t issue d a custod y order

grantin g j o in t phys i ca l an d lega l custod y o f R

. A.

, wit h Rene e and

Rober t trad i ng physica l custod y ever y tw o t o th r e e day s (i.e.

, a 2

-

2

- 3 c ustody p l an).

III. Th e DVRO

I n Marc h 2022

, Rene e applie d fo r ano t he r DVR O alleging

ongoin g abu s e

, ha r a ssment

, an d stalking

. Rober t oppose d her

request

, an d aske d fo r sol e lega l an d physica l custod y o f R.A.

A t th e Apri l 5

, 202 2 hearing

, Rene e provide d ev i den c e that

Rober t consistentl y sen t he r lewd

, racist

, an d threatening

messages

, bot h ove r Talk i ng Pa r e nt s an d th r oug h thei r 10

- year

ol d son’ s persona l cel l phone

. 4 Sh e als o presente d a 56

- se c o nd

long v i deo of an i ncident whe r e Robert had phys i c ally con f ron t ed

he r whe n sh e approache d R.A

. afte r hi s basebal l practic e t o say

goodbye

. Th e tria l cour t app e a r ed disturbed by t he video,

admonishin g Robe r t fo r “[g]ettin g i n [Renee’s ] fac e i n th e v i deo

. I

cou l d see you were shak i ng. You w e re shak i ng i n that v i deo. All

unneces s ar y

. . . [b]u t yo u wer e s o upset

. I coul d tel l ho w ang r y

you were at her.”

Th e tria l cour t ultimatel y conclude d tha t Robe r t’ s condu c t

constitute d unlawfu l harassment

, an d grante d a t w o

- yea r DVRO

4 Be c au s e neither the content nor the su f f iciency of these

message s i s a t issu e i n thi s appeal

, w e n e e d no t repea t them

here

. Suffic e t o say

, the y ar e utterl y reprehensible.5

agains t h i m. 5 Th e cour t mandate d ange r managemen t and

batterer’ s interve n tio n program s fo r Rober t

, explainin g tha t it

coul d no t lawfull y giv e Rober t visitatio n right s unles s he

complete d thes e programs.

Althoug h Renee’ s reques t fo r a DVR O explicitl y included

request s fo r sol e lega l an d physica l custod y o f R.A.

, th e tria l court

issue d a ne w cus t o d y o r de r m a intainin g th e preexistin g joint

lega l an d physica l custod y arrangement

. A t th e hearing

, the

cour t expressl y state d tha t i t woul d no t appl y th e statutory

presump t io n agains t award i n g j oin t custod y t o a paren t who

commit s domesti c violenc e agains t hi s coparent

. ( § 3044

, subd.

(a). ) Instead

, th e cour t “f[ound ] tha t there’ s a n exceptio n t o the

[section ] 304 4 pre s umptio n becaus e t h es e partie s hav e been

operatin g o n a 2

- 2

- 3 schedule ; I’ m hav i n g [Robert ] en r o l l i n the

batterer’ s interventio n program ; an d tha t th e harassmen t that

[Renee ] allege s I believ e i s harassmen t b y wa y mostl y of

messagin g an d c o n f

rontation

, verba l confrontation. ” Th e court

di d no t addres s Renee’ s reques t fo r chil d support.

Rene e timel y appea l ed

. 6

5 Th e DVR O pro t ect s onl y Rene e an d he r chil d b y ano t her

father

, no t R.A.

6 Rober t d i d no t fil e a respondent’ s brie f

. Con s equently

, we

wil l decid e th e appea l o n th e record

, Renee’ s openin g brief

, and

he r ora l argument

. (Cal

. Ru l es o f Cou r t

, rul e 8.220(a) ( 2 ).)6

I. Custody DISCUSSION

Rene e argue s tha t th e tria l cour t faile d t o compl y wit h the

provision s o f sectio n 3044

, whic h entitl e he r t o a rebuttable

presump t io n agains t continue d join t custody

. 7

A. Applicabl e Law

Whe n decidin g a DVR O petition , a tria l cour t ha s discretion

als o t o mak e an y necessa r y o r prope r orde r fo r custod y o f a child.

( § 3022 ; Celi a S

. v

. Hug o H

. (2016 ) 3 Cal.App.5 t h 655

, 661

( Celi a S

. ).) The gu i ding prin c i ple for the court in issuing any

custod y o r visitatio n orde r i s tha t th e orde r mus t b e i n th e child’s

bes t interest

. (

Ibid

. )

“[S]ection 3044 establishes a rebuttab l e p r esumption t hat

awardin g physica l o r lega l custod y t o a p a ren t wh o has

committe d domesti c violenc e i s detrimenta l t o a child’ s best

interest. ” ( Celi a S

. , supra

, 3 Cal.App

. 5t h a t p

. 661. ) Tha t statute

provide s tha t “[u]po n a findin g b y th e cour t tha t a part y seeking

custod y o f a chil d ha s perpetrate d domesti c violenc e wi t h i n the

previou s fiv e year s agains t th e othe r part y seekin g custod y o f the

7 O n Februar y 9

, 2023

, Rene e s u bmitte d a lette r informing

u s tha t th e tria l cour t recentl y entere d a new

, temporar y custody

orde r afte r Rober t wa s foun d t o hav e violate d th e DVRO

. She

doe s no t argu e tha t th e orde r render s he r appea l i n thi s case

moot

, an d sh e d i d no t submi t th e o r de r fo r ou r r eview

. In

general

, w e d o no t loo k a t postjudgme n t developmen t when

rev i ewin g a n appea l an d whe n mootnes s i s no t a n issue

. ( I n re

Zet h S

. (2003 ) 3 1 Cal.4t h 396

, 40 5 [“I t ha s lon g bee n th e gene r al

rul e an d understand i n g tha t ‘a n appea l rev i ew s th e correctnes s of

a judgmen t a s o f th e tim e o f it s rendition

, upo n a reco r d of

matter s whic h wer e befor e th e tria l cour t fo r it s consideration’”].)

Absen t an y argumen t tha t w e shou l d dev i at e fro m thi s gene r al

rule

, w e declin e t o d o s o here.7

chil d

. . . , ther e i s a rebuttab l e p r esumptio n t h a t a n awa r d of

. . . join t physica l o r lega l cus t od y o f a chil d t o [the ] perso n who

ha s perpetrate d domesti c violenc e i s detrimenta l t o th e best

interes t o f th e child

, pursuan t t o Section s 3 0 1 1 an d 3020

. This

presump t io n ma y onl y b e rebutte d b y a preponderan c e o f the

evidence. ” ( § 3044

, subd

. (a).)

The p r esumption contained in section 3044 is manda t ory

an d a cour t mus t appl y i t whe n a find i ng o f domesti c violenc e has

bee n made

. (

I n r e Marriag e o f Fajot a ( 2014 ) 23 0 Cal.App.4th

1487

, 149 8 (

Fa j o t a ).)

B. Standar d o

f Rev i ew

W e revie w th e tria l court’ s issuanc e o f a custod y order

unde r th e abu s e o f discretio n standard

. ( Ellis v. Lyons (2016)

2 Cal.App.5t h 404

, 415. ) “ A famil y la w cour t abuse s it s discretion

i f i t applie s imprope r crit e ri a o r make s incorrec t legal

assumptions

. [Citations.] ” ( Ibi d .)

C. Ana l

ysis

Th e tria l cour t i n thi s cas e foun d tha t Rober t committed

act s o f domesti c violenc e agains t Rene e (warrant i ng a two

- year

restrainin g o r de r p r otectin g he r fro m h i m)

, bu t awarde d Robert

join t lega l custod y o f thei r child.

The trial court did not apply the rebuttable pre s umption

provide d i n sectio n 304 4 whe n considerin g th e ope r ativ e c u stody

order

. Instead

, th e cour t identifie d thre e suppose d ex c e ption s to

th e statutor y presumption : (1 ) th e existin g 2

- 2

- 3 custod y plan;

(2 ) th e tria l court’ s simultaneou s orde r mandatin g Robert’s

participa t io n i n a batterer’ s interventio n program ; an d (3 ) the

fac t tha t Robert’ s harassment

, thoug h sufficien t t o justif y issuing

a two

- yea r restrainin g order

, wa s someho w insufficien t t o trigger

section 3044.8 None of the s e a r e valid, as there a r e no ex c eptions to the

mandato r y p r esumption c on t a i ned in s ection 3044. ( Fajo t a

,

supr a

, 23 0 Cal.App.4t h a t p

. 1498. ) And

, w e not e tha t every

suppo s ed ex c ept i on identified b y th e tria l cour t i s expressly

contradicte d b y exi s tin g law

, inc l udin g b y th e plai n languag e of

th e statute

. (Se e Celi a S.

, supra

, 3 Ca l .App.5t h a t pp

. 663

– 66 4 [if

sectio n 304 4 applies

, maintainin g a 50

- 5 0 custod y arrangemen t is

a n abus e o f discretio n un l es s th e p r esumptio n ha s bee n applied

an d rebu t ted] ; § § 3044

, subds

. (b)(2 ) [listin g completio n o f a

batterer’ s treatmen t progra m a s a facto r supportin g rebuttal

, not

a n ex c e pt i o n t o t he presump t ion’ s application]

, (c ) [the

presump t io n i s trigge r ed whe n “‘ a perso n i s foun d b y th e cour t to

hav e i n tentionall y o r reck l essl y

. . . engage d i n behavio r i n volv i ng

. . . harassmen t

. . . o r disturbin g th e pea c e o f another’”] ; Fajot a

,

supr a

, 23 0 Cal.App.4t h a t p

. 149 8 [th e tria l cour t i s prohibited

fro m “‘“call[ing]

. . . int o pla y ’ th e p r esumptio n containe d in

sectio n 304 4 onl y whe n th e cour t believe s i t i s appropriate’”].)

Accordingly

, th e tria l cour t abuse d it s discretio n by

awa r din g Rober t jo i nt lega l custod y withou t applyin g the

require d statutor y presumption

. ( Fajo t a

, supr a

, 230 Cal.App.4 t h

a t p

. 1500.)

II. Chil d Support

Rene e als o argue s tha t th e tria l cour t faile d t o conside r her

reques t fo r chil d support.

A. Applicabl e La w an d S t andar d o f Review

A petitione r i n a p r oceed i ng unde r th e Domesti c Violence

Preventio n Act

, includin g DVR O hearings

, ma y reques t child

suppor t i f h e o r sh e h a s custod y o f th e child

. ( § 6341

, subd

. (a).)

“Whe n determinin g whethe r t o mak e an y order s unde r this

subdivision

, th e cour t shal l conside r whethe r failur e t o mak e any9

o f the s e order s ma y jeopa r diz e th e safet y o f th e petitione r an d the

childre n fo r who m chil d suppor t i s requested

, includin g safety

concern s relate d t o t h e finan c ia l need s o f th e pet i tione r an d the

children. ” (

Ibid

. )

W e revie w th e court’ s implici t denia l o f chil d suppor t for

abus e o f discretion

. (

I n r e Marriag e o f Chandle r (1997)

6 0 Cal.App.4t h 124

, 128.)

B. Ana l

ysis

Althoug h Rene e requeste d chil d suppor t a s par t o f her

successfu l DVR O request

, th e tria l cour t di d no t addres s th e issue

o f chil d suppor t a t th e hearin g o r i n it s minu t e o r der

, ef f ectively

denying the r eque s t

. 8 Ther e i s n o indicatio n tha t th e tria l court

considere d “whethe r failur e t o mak e [ a chil d support ] order[ ] may

[have ] jeopardize[d ] t h e safe t y o f [Renee ] [o r th e child ] fo r whom

chil d suppor t i s requested. ” ( § 6341

, subd

. (a). ) It s apparent

failur e t o com p l y wit h thi s statutor y dut y constitute s a n abus e of

discretion

. (

Platypu s Wear

, Inc

. v

. Goldber g ( 2 0 08)

16 6 Cal.App.4 t h 772

, 78 2 [whe r e th e tria l cour t exercises

discretio n th e la w doe s no t prov i d e

, i t abuse s it s discretion].)

8 Renee’ s failur e t o rais e thi s issu e a t th e hearing

, a s an

un r ep r e sente d litigan t i n a DVR O pro c eeding

, i s no t necessarily

fatal

. ( Gonzale z v

. Muno z (2007 ) 15 6 Cal.App

. 4t h 413

, 423

[recognizin g tha t judge s i n famil y cour t ar e “necessaril y expected

t o pla y a fa r mor e activ e r o le ” durin g Domesti c Violence

Protectio n Ac t proceedings

, “i n ligh t o f th e vulnerabilit y o f the

targe t e d populatio n (largel y un r ep r e sente d wome n an d their

mino r children)”].)10 DISPOS I TION

Th e Apri l 5

, 2022

, c u stod y o r de r grantin g Rene e an d Robert

join t lega l an d phy s ica l custod y i s reversed

. Th e matte r is

remande d t o th e tria l cour t t o app l y th e manda t or y pre s umption

se t fort h i n sectio n 304 4 an d t o conside r Renee’ s reques t fo r child

suppor t pursuan t t o sectio n 6341

. Rene e shal l b e awarde d costs

on appea l

.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFIC I AL REPORTS.

_____ , Actin g P

. J.

ASHMANN

- GERST

W e concur:

, J. CHAVEZ

, J. HOFFSTADT