1

Filed 11/15/21

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

C.T.,

Plaintiff and Respondent

v.

K.W.,

Defendant and Appellant.

A161993

(City & County of San Francisco

Super. Ct. No. FCV-19-814465)

K.W. (mother) appeals an order entered in this contentious domestic 

violence action denying her requests under various provisions of the Family 

Code1 and the Code of Civil Procedure that C.T. (father) be ordered to pay her 

attorney fees.2 She contends the trial court erred in finding that she was not 

entitled to attorney fees under any of the cited statutes. While we agree that 

most of the statutes cited by mother are not applicable, we conclude that she 

may be entitled to attorney fees under Family Code section 7605.

Accordingly, we shall reverse the order and remand for the court to 

determine whether an award of fees and costs is appropriate, using the 

appropriate needs-based criteria.

1 All statutory references are to the Family Code unless otherwise 

noted.

2 Father’s motion to identify the parties using only their initials is 

granted.
2

Background

The relevant background is not contested.3 The parties’ son was born in 

November 2018. Immediately following the child’s birth, mother initiated a 

claim with the local child support agency in Los Angeles, which filed a child

support action against father in Los Angeles Superior Court. Subsequent 

testing established father’s paternity. Mother was added as a party to that 

action and a stipulated judgment was entered in May 2019.

In the meantime, in February 2019, father initiated the present action 

under the Domestic Violence Prevention Act, section 6200 et seq., in San 

Francisco, requesting protective orders as well as sole legal and physical 

custody of his son. In support of his request for a protective order, father 

submitted documents evidencing mother’s repeated online cyberstalking and 

harassment of father, conduct which as discussed post, led to the filing of 

criminal charges against mother in the San Francisco Superior Court. The 

petition also alleges that mother has a criminal history of domestic violence 

and at that time in Utah was facing electronic harassment charges involving 

a different victim. Much if not all of the threatening and harassing behavior 

alleged in the petition involves the child and the petition alleges that the 

child is at risk as a result of mother’s “compulsive, obsessive and abusive 

behaviors.”

In March 2019, the San Francisco court issued an amended temporary 

restraining order awarding father sole custody of the child and authorizing 

him to retrieve the child, with the assistance of local authorities. Shortly 

3 Our recitation of the factual and procedural history is drawn in part 

from this court’s prior opinion in this case. ([C.T. v. K.W.] (A158691, June 29, 

2021) [nonpub. opn.].)
3

thereafter, father retrieved his son from his maternal grandparent’s home in 

Utah. Since then the child has resided in California with his father.4

In January 2020, proceedings on the domestic violence restraining 

order were stayed pending resolution of felony stalking charges filed against 

mother in San Francisco criminal court. Issues of custody and visitation, 

however, continued to be litigated. In August 2020, the court denied mother’s 

request to modify custody and continued mother’s supervised visitation inperson at a location in Hayward and by Zoom video conferencing when 

mother is in Utah.

Between August and October 14, 2020, mother filed several motions in 

connection with requests for modification of the custody and visitation orders 

requesting attorney fees under various statutes, including section 7605. The 

court consolidated her requests and held a hearing on attorney fees on 

January 12, 2021.5

Following the hearing, the court denied mother’s request for fees. The 

court explained that none of the statutory grounds cited by mother in support 

of her request permitted a fee award at this time. In summary, the court 

found with respect to section 271 and Code of Civil Procedure section 128.5, 

that father had not exhibited any conduct to warrant a sanction-based fee 

4 Around the same time, mother filed paternity actions in New York 

and Utah seeking child support from father. While the Utah court initially 

stayed mother’s paternity case based on California’s prior exercise of custody 

jurisdiction, the stay was lifted and some custody issues were litigated while 

the jurisdiction of the California court was being determined on appeal. The 

outcome of the paternity actions filed by mother in New York is unclear from 

the record. In any event, these proceedings are not relevant to the issue 

currently before the court.

5 In September 2020, father filed a petition requesting that mother be 

declared a vexatious litigant under Code of Civil Procedure section 391, 

subdivision (B)(1). His petition was granted in January 2021.
4

award. The court found that sections 2030, 2107, 3120, and 3121 were

inapplicable because these statutes apply only to married parties and the

parties here were never married. The court found that section 3027.1, 

subdivision (a) is not applicable because there has been no finding that father

has made false allegations of child abuse and that section 3452 is not 

applicable because mother is not the prevailing party in an action to enforce 

an out-of-state custody order. Finally, the court explained that section 7605, 

which authorizes attorney fees in actions brought under part 3 of the division 

8 of the Family Code (the Uniform Parentage Act) is not applicable because 

the present action was brought under division 10 of the Family Code

(Prevention of Domestic Violence). Mother filed a notice of appeal.6

Discussion

At the outset, we recognize the legitimate arguments and concerns 

raised by father regarding the inclusion of inflammatory and irrelevant 

materials in mother’s appendix and her repeated citation to unpublished 

decisions. While these concerns are significant, we give no consideration to 

those items and, given the nature of these proceedings, we deny his request 

to dismiss the appeal on this ground.

Similarly, we recognize that mother failed to file all of the required 

documentation in support of her attorney fee request, so that her motions 

may have been procedurally defective. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 

5.427(b)(1).) Arguably, the trial court “implicitly excused [m]other’s 

procedural noncompliance by not rejecting her motion on that basis.” (N.S. v. 

D.M. (2018) 21 Cal.App.5th 1040, 1054.) In any event, because of the nature 

6 Mother’s requests for judicial notice of documents filed and 

transcripts of hearings held after entry of the order on appeal is denied on the 

grounds of relevance. Mother’s request for judicial notice of the record in the 

prior appeal (A158691) is granted.
5

of these proceedings, we deem it appropriate to consider the merits of the 

mother’s appeal rather than affirm the trial court’s order based on procedural 

defects. As discussed post, we conclude mother is potentially entitled to 

recover fees and costs under section 7605, subdivision (a).

Initially, we summarily reject mother’s arguments regarding the other

statutory grounds cited in her motions. The trial court did not abuse its 

discretion in finding that father had not exhibited any conduct sufficient to 

support a sanction-based fee award under section 271 or Code of Civil 

Procedure section 128.5. The trial court also correctly determined that 

mother was not entitled to fees under section 3027.1 because there have been 

no findings that father has made false allegations of child abuse, and that 

mother was not entitled to fees under section 3400 et seq. because she is not 

the prevailing party.7 Similarly, while mother is not entitled to attorney fees 

under section 6344 for the same reason that she is not a prevailing party, 

there is nothing in the language of that provision, or in logic, as father 

contends, that excludes the right to attorney fees under another applicable 

provision simply because fees are not justified under section 6344. 

Section 7605, subdivision (a), provides: “In any proceeding to establish 

physical or legal custody of a child or a visitation order under this part, and 

in any proceeding subsequent to entry of a related judgment, the court shall 

ensure that each party has access to legal representation to preserve each 

party’s rights by ordering, if necessary based on the income and needs 

assessments, one party, except a government entity, to pay to the other party, 

or to the other party’s attorney, whatever amount is reasonably necessary for 

attorney’s fees and for the cost of maintaining or defending the proceeding 

7 Mother’s opening brief does not challenge the court’s rulings under 

sections 2107, 3120, and 3121.
6

during the pendency of the proceeding.” (See also N.S. v. D.M., supra, 21 

Cal.App.5th at pp. 1052-1053 [Section 7605 “allows fee shifting in both an 

initial proceeding to establish custody or visitation under the Uniform 

Parentage Act [citation] and in ‘any proceeding subsequent to entry of a 

related judgment.’ ”].)8 The purpose of this statute “ ‘is not the redistribution 

of money from the greater income party to the lesser income party’ but 

instead ‘parity: a fair hearing with two sides equally represented.’ [Citation.] 

‘The idea is that both sides should have the opportunity to retain counsel, not 

just (as is usually the case) only the party with greater financial strength.’ ” 

(Id. at p. 1053.)

Mother contends the court erred in concluding that she was ineligible 

for fees under this section. She argues that the present proceeding is 

“related” to the paternity proceeding filed in Los Angeles under the Uniform 

Parentage Act. In N.S. v. D.M., supra, 21 Cal.App.5th at page 1055, the court 

explained that “[i]n keeping with its statutory purpose, ‘the most obvious 

function of the “related” proceeding language is to allow a trial court to fully 

ensure both parties’ ability to maintain or defend a [family law action].’

[Citation.] Two suits might be ‘ “related” ’ if they ‘involve the same or similar 

subject matter’ as the family law action and could have been part of that 

action. [Citations.] . . . [¶] Another way two suits might be ‘related’ is if the 

separate civil suit intends an effect on the family law action.”

8 Similarly, section 7640 authorizes the court to “order reasonable fees 

of counsel, experts, and the child’s guardian ad litem, and other costs of the 

action and pretrial proceedings, including genetic testing, to be paid by the 

parties, excluding any governmental entity, in proportions and at times 

determined by the court. The court may apply the standards set forth in 

Sections 2032 and 7605 in making this determination.”
7

Whether an action is related to a case brought under the Uniform 

Parentage Act within the meaning of section 7605 is a factual question for 

determination by the trial court. (N.S. v. D.M., supra, 21 Cal.App.5th at 

p. 1055.) Here, the trial court concluded that the actions were not related. 

The court explained that mother “did previously initiate a UPA [Uniform 

Parentage Act] case in the County of Los Angeles, through the California 

Department of Child Support Services. A judgment issued in that case in

2019. The DCSS case is closed. Neither party sought custody orders in that 

case. That case has never been consolidated with the within action.”

Although the court was certainly correct that the Los Angeles proceedings 

have terminated and were never formally consolidated with the San 

Francisco action, undisputed facts in the record nonetheless establish that 

the two actions are unquestionably related for purposes of section 7605. 

The subject matter of both cases is clearly the same or similar. 

Although the Los Angeles action did not consider custody and visitation,

those issues could have been resolved in that action. The summons and 

complaint served on father in the Los Angeles action requests that mother be 

added as a party to the action and advises that “[a]fter the other parent has 

become a party to the lawsuit either parent may then ask the court to decide 

issues concerning support, custody, visitation, and restraining orders 

(domestic violence). No other issues may be raised in this lawsuit. Either 

parent may go to court to modify the court order.” Instead, the circumstances

described at length in this court’s prior opinion caused those issues to be 

adjudicated in the domestic violence proceedings in San Francisco, where 

adjudication of those matters is still continuing. The request for child custody 

and visitation orders attached to father’s restraining order petition expressly 

identifies the Los Angeles actions as a pending “other custody case.”
8

According to email communications between mother and father’s counsel, 

before the filing of the domestic violence action in San Francisco, the parties

agreed to move the Los Angeles case to San Francisco. According to those 

communications, they were informed by the Los Angeles social services 

agency that it would not support a change of venue at that time. It is 

undisputed that the San Francisco court relied on the judgment of paternity 

entered in the Los Angeles action to establish father’s paternity. Given this 

record, the only supportable finding is that the two proceedings are related 

for purposes of section 7605. (See N.S. v. D.M., supra, 21 Cal.App.5th at 

p. 1056 [determination that cases were related for purposes of section 7605 is 

the “only . . . possible finding from the record.”)

Father contends that even if the matters are related, the court properly 

denied mother’s request because such a request should have been brought in 

the Los Angeles action. We disagree. Nothing in the language of section 7605 

requires that the motion for fees be brought in the initial action filed under 

the Uniform Parentage Act, rather than in a related proceeding. The statute 

provides for fees “in any proceeding subsequent to entry of a related 

judgment.” (§ 7605, subd. (a), italics added.) While the court in N.S. v. D.M., 

supra, 21 Cal.App.5th at pages 1056 stated broadly that “a request for fees 

and costs incurred in ‘related’ proceedings must be brought in the family law 

action, not in the ‘related’ proceeding,” the court did so in rejecting the

argument that mother’s failure to bring a motion for fees in the related action 

precluded recovery under section 7605. That case upholds the right to seek 

fees in the initial family law action, despite the fact that fees were incurred in 

a related action, but the court there had no occasion to consider whether in 
9

such a case fees could be obtained in the related action. The cases the court 

cites in support of that “rule” are also factually distinguishable.9

Given that the issues of custody and visitation are actively being 

litigated in the San Francisco action, not the Los Angeles action, the court in 

San Francisco is in a superior position to analyze the relevant factors for an 

attorney-fee award under section 7605.10 Requiring the issue to be litigated 

9 In In re Marriage of Green (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 584, 589, 591, the 

court upheld an award for attorney fees that were incurred in several related 

proceedings but awarded in the family law proceeding. The court noted that 

in one of those related cases (a malicious prosecution action against the

attorney representing husband’s ex-wife) the court, after upholding the 

attorney’s demurrer, stated that if husband’s “claims had merit he should 

have sought relief ‘not through an independent action but through an award 

of attorney fees and sanctions against [the attorney] within the dissolution 

action.’ ” (Ibid., quoting Green v. Uccelli (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 1112, 1116.) 

In Neal v. Superior Court (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 22, a husband filed a civil 

action seeking to set aside a promissory note entered in a dissolution action. 

The appellate court found that the family law court had jurisdiction over the 

matter and issued a writ directing the trial court to sustain wife’s demurrer. 

In conclusion, the court added, “Moreover, because of the inextricable 

connection between [husband’s] supposedly civil causes of action and the 

family law case . . . , we direct the family law court to make an appropriate 

attorney fee award in [wife’s] favor for having been dragged through this 

unnecessary excursion in the civil court.” (Id. at pp. 26-27.) These cases do 

not support the conclusion that the motion for attorney fees under 

section 7605 must be brought in the family law action.

10 Section 7605, subdivision (b) provides in relevant part: “When a 

request for attorney’s fees and costs is made under this section, the court 

shall make findings on whether an award of attorney’s fees and costs is 

appropriate, whether there is a disparity in access to funds to retain counsel, 

and whether one party is able to pay for legal representation of both parties. 

If the findings demonstrate disparity in access and ability to pay, the court 

shall make an order awarding attorney’s fees and costs.” (See also Darab 

Cody N. v. Olivera (2019) 31 Cal.App.5th 1134, 1143 [“When considering a 

request for attorney fees, ‘the trial court must determine what is just and 
10

as a postjudgment motion in the Los Angeles action would place a pointless 

and unnecessary burden on both the parties and the court system. Absent an 

express statutory requirement, we see no utility in reading into the statute 

such a requirement. 

Contrary to father’s arguments, the cases discussing the alleged “public 

policy in California that a domestic violence survivor should not have to 

finance their own abuse” are not applicable. Admittedly father has been 

found entitled to provisional relief based on the as-yet unadjudicated showing 

of mother’s abuse, and “there is a significant public policy against domestic 

violence . . . ‘granting spousal support to a convicted abuser is 

unconscionable.’ ” (In re Marriage of Cauley (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 1100, 

1106.) Nevertheless, this domestic violence action has become the proceeding 

in which custody of the parties’ son is being determined. At present, mother—

proceeding in propria persona—claims to be unable to afford counsel to 

counteract what she perceives as a well-financed effort to deprive her of

custody and visitation of her son. While we do not necessarily accept mother’s

characterization, “ ‘[t]he principle of the best interests of the child is the sine 

qua non of the family law process governing custody disputes.’ [Citation.]

Imposing attorney fees on the wealthier party in paternity actions ‘ensure[s] 

that both sides of the custody dispute are represented and are able to present 

evidence bearing on the best interests of the child’ when ‘a court is 

determining who gets custody of a child.’ ” (Robert J. v. Catherine D. (2005) 

134 Cal.App.4th 1392, 1403, quoting Banning v. Newdow (2004) 119 

Cal.App.4th 438, 447, 451.) The focus on the best interests of the child in 

reasonable under the circumstances, taking into consideration the parties’ 

needs and ability to pay and the conduct of each party.’ ”].)
11

custody disputes remains true even when one parent is alleged to have 

engaged in domestic violence. 

Because the trial court did not exercise its discretion to consider 

mother’s request under section 7605, subdivision (a), remand is necessary for 

the court to determine whether an award of fees and costs is justified under 

that section, using appropriate criteria. We express no view as to whether an 

award of fees and costs is justified.11

Disposition

The order denying mother’s request for attorney fees is vacated, and 

the matter is remanded for further proceedings to determine whether mother 

may recover attorney fees pursuant to section 7605 in connection with the 

custody and visitation issues being litigated in the San Francisco action. 

Mother is entitled to recover her costs on appeal.

POLLAK, P. J.

WE CONCUR:

STREETER, J.

BROWN, J.

11 Mother’s request that we direct that this matter be assigned to a 

different judge on remand is denied. 
12

Trial court: San Francisco County Superior Court

Trial judge: Honorable Monica F. Wiley

Counsel for plaintiff and respondent: Michelene Insalaco 

Janet Simmonds 

SUCHERMAN • INSALACO LLP

Counsel for defendant and appellant: K.W., in Propria Persona