Filed 7/16/13 Marriage of Svendsen 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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 ERIC I. and ANN C. 

SVENDSEN.

ERIC I. SVENDSEN,

Respondent,

v.

ANN C. SVENDSEN,

Appellant.

 D062664

 (Super. Ct. No. D520079)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Susan D. 

Huguenor, Judge. Appeal dismissed. 

Sergio W. Stevens for Appellant.

Eric I. Svendsen, in pro. per., for Respondent.

In this marital dissolution action, the court ordered temporary custody of the 

parties' two minor children, Emily, who was 15 at the time of the hearing, and Lukas, 

who was 10 at the time of the hearing, to their father, Eric Svendsen, with an 82 percent 
2

visitation share to father. The court also made orders for spousal support and child 

support. 

Ann C. Svendsen appeals that ruling, asserting the court erred in accepting the 

recommendation of Family Court Services as to custody because it was based upon a 

"lack of evidence" and "misinterpreted evidence." Eric contends the temporary custody 

order is not an appealable order. 

For reasons we shall explain, we dismiss this appeal because an interim custody 

determination is not an appealable order. 

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Because we are dismissing this appeal as being from a nonappealable order, we 

discuss the underlying facts only briefly. 

It was alleged in this case that Ann had a history of potentially abusive behavior 

towards the children and demonstrated negative parenting behaviors. Family Court 

Services recommended the change in temporary custody from a 50 percent shared 

custody to legal custody being placed with Eric. The court adopted that recommendation. 

At the hearing wherein the court made the temporary custody order and resolved other 

issues, the court asked counsel for Ann whether the court should consider child support 

and attorney fees at that time. Counsel for Ann indicated that he did not want those 

issues addressed at that time. The court then asked, "[W]hat is there yet to do before we 

can fully resolve this matter?" Counsel for Ann indicated that the parties were engaged 

in settlement negotiations regarding separate property and requested that another hearing 

be set for "90 days out." The court then set a settlement conference for December 2012. 
3

As part of that order the court also directed that Ann pay Eric $219 per month in child 

support. 

DISCUSSION

As the Court of Appeal stated in Lester v. Lennane (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 536, 

559-560 (Lester), "A temporary custody order is interlocutory by definition, since it is 

made pendente lite with the intent that it will be superseded by an award of custody after 

trial. [Citations.] Code of Civil Procedure section 904.1 bars appeals from interlocutory 

judgments or orders 'other than as provided in paragraphs (8), (9), and 11. . . .' [Citation.] 

Temporary custody orders are not listed in any of those paragraphs. Therefore, this 

statute bars the appealability of such orders." (Fn. omitted.)

In her statement of appealability, however, Ann asserts that because the temporary 

custody order also determined child support, it is appealable as a "collateral order." This 

contention is unavailing.

"One exception to the 'one final judgment' rule codified in Code of Civil 

Procedure section 904.1 is the so-called collateral order doctrine. Where the trial court's 

ruling on a collateral issue 'is substantially the same as a final judgment in an independent 

proceeding' [citation], in that it leaves the court no further action to take on 'a matter 

which . . . is severable from the general subject of the litigation' [citation], an appeal will 

lie from that collateral order even though other matters in the case remain to be 

determined. [Citation.] . . . [¶] In determining whether an order is collateral, 'the test is 

whether an order is "important and essential to the correct determination of the main 
4

issue." If the order is "a necessary step to that end," it is not collateral.' " (Lester, supra, 

84 Cal.App.4th at p. 561.)

Here, the temporary custody order directs the payment of money and is dispositive 

of the parties' rights concerning child support. But the question then arises, is child 

support a collateral issue? We conclude that it is not. 

Because the temporary custody did not finally resolve any matter "severable from 

the general subject of the litigation," it is not appealable. (In re Marriage of Van Sickle 

(1977) 68 Cal.App.3d 728, 735.) A temporary custody order contemplates further review 

and a possible change in custody given a change in circumstances. Indeed, in this case 

temporary legal custody was originally 50 percent each and then changed to 100 percent 

in favor of Eric. 

Moreover, the child support order was "important and essential" to the issue of 

custody because it determined the amount of money Ann was to pay Eric for the care of 

the children given his 82 percent visitation time. Thus, the temporary custody order is 

not a "collateral order" on this basis as well and is not appealable.

Finally, as the Court of Appeal discussed in Lester, supra, 84 Cal.App.4th 536, 

temporary custody orders are not appealable on grounds of policy: "The very nature of 

such orders compels the swiftest possible review of any challenge. The writ process, not 

the appeal process, is the way to get that review. [¶] In most custody dispute cases, 

young children bond with their primary custodial parents. The trial court must place the 

child's best interest first in any long-term custody decision. [Citations.] Thus, the child's 

bond with the primary custodial parent will often weigh heavily in the court's mind. 
5

Once the bond is established, the court is likely to find that the child's best interest 

requires preserving that bond to maintain stability in the child's life. [¶] A noncustodial 

parent who seeks to obtain custody will often be at a disadvantage by the time of trial if 

the child has bonded with the custodial parent. The noncustodial parent's only effective 

recourse is to obtain immediate review of any objectionable temporary custody order. 

This can be done by filing a petition for writ, a procedure [appellant] failed to use in this 

case. It cannot be done by filing an appeal which will sit in abeyance while the case 

works its way to trial and decision—and while the bond between child and custodial 

parent strengthens and deepens." (Id. at p. 565.)1

DISPOSITION

The appeal is dismissed. 

NARES, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

HALLER, J.

AARON, J.

 

1 We note that Ann has not filed a reply brief responding to Eric's contention that 

the temporary custody order is not an appealable order. By not doing so, we conclude 

that she has conceded the merits of Eric's position.