Filed 6/2/15 Marriage of Erikson CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIX

In re Marriage of KAREN LIEBSCHER ERIKSON and ROLF FORDE ERIKSON. 2d Civil No. B255411 (Super. Ct. No. FL031235) (San Luis Obispo County)

KAREN LIEBSCHER ERIKSON,
Appellant,

v.
ROLF FORDE ERIKSON,
Respondent.

Karen Liebscher Erikson appeals an order terminating the appointm ent of
her children ' s therapist , Suzanne Cholet, and appointing a replacement therapist. We
affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Karen and Rolf were married briefly in 200 3

. 1 Karen obtained a domestic violence restraining order against Rolf before she gave birth to t heir son and daughter
, twins
, in 2004

.

1 We shall refer to Karen Liebscher Erikson and Rolf Forde Erikson by their first names not from disrespect, but to ease the reader ' s task.2 In 200 6 , the trial court awarded sole physical and legal custody to K aren, based partly on Rolf ' s criminal history, alcohol and drug dependency, and explosive behavior during visits with the twins. It ordered su per vised visitation for Rolf.

The paternal grandmother, Doreen Webb, intervened and sought visitation. The trial court denied her reque st because she was unable to control her undermining
behavior toward Karen. By 2011 , the trial court record consisted o f 18 volumes in this

" highly contested " case.

The record on appeal includes only a fraction of these documents. It omits a number of findings and orders that may have guided our review of the trial court ' s decision to substitute therapists.

In 2 00 9 , the trial court appointed Suzanne Cholet , LMF T, as the minors ' therapist. It granted Rolf weekly supervised visits with the children. The record omits this order, but the parties refer to it.

In 2011, minors' counsel re commended therapeutic visits b ecause the visits
with Rolf were detrimental. In support of the request, Cholet declared, " The visits with father are not only detrimental to the children, they are counterproductive to forming a
chil d/parent relationship with [father ]. " Cholet based her opinion on her weekly
observations of the minors following their visit s with Rolf between 2009 and 2011.

T he trial court appointed a therapist to conduct therapeutic visits. He
withdrew before conducting any visits, because of Rolf 's and Karen ' s " resis ta nce " to the

process. Rolf had no visits with his children for eight months. T he trial court appoint ed

a replacement therapist
, Stephanie Wilson, LMFT
, to conduct the therapeutic visits

. Tension later developed between Cholet and Wilson.

First, a disa greement arose between Cholet and minors' counsel about
whether Karen and Rolf ' s daughter needed a psychological evaluation. Minors' counsel

repo r ted that the daughter
, now eight years old, needed to be evaluated by a psychologist
and that the minors' the rapist, Cholet
, was " adamant that the [daughter] does not require
an evaluation. " Minors' counsel reported that disciplinary records from the daughter ' s school from 2010 to 2012 recorded 90 instances of behavior, many of which involved her3

use of force ag ainst students and some of which involv ed use of force against staff.
There were 10 notices of suspension betwe en January 2011 and April 2012. The daughter ' s teacher reported the daughter ' s eyes were frequently moving, darting or rolling
, and she " exhibi ts constant twisting and jerky body movements. " The daughter's current school principal and teacher believed an evaluation would be helpful. Ne ither Karen nor Cholet thought an evaluation was necessary. Both perceived that the problem

was bullying at th e school. M inors' counsel believed that Cholet was relying on Karen for information and not communicating with the school. He also asked to be relieved because Karen had made accusations against him and because all of the parties " are manipulative. "

The trial court did not order an evaluation or relieve minors' counsel, but it
ordered Cholet to remain in contact with the children ' s school and t o address any issues
that might arise. It also ordered the sc hool to communicate with Cholet

.

In December 2013, minors' counsel asked the trial court to replace Cholet. Wilson submitted a declaration in support of the request. She expressed "concern[] that [Cholet] was not encouraging or helping [the children] to adjust to visitation with their father, but r ather supporting their resistance to it." She wrote, "[W]hat the children reported to their therapist, Suzanne Cholet, was greatly different than what I observed during their visits [with Rolf]."

Rolf had not participated in any therapeutic visits in t he past seven months.
Counsel declared his " understanding that the therapeutic visits were not progressing as a
result of the children ' s therapist [] , Suzanne Cholet, not encouraging the children ' s cooperation with visitation

. " He offered his opinion that " [t]he therapeutic visits between [Rolf] and the children, if they continue, will likely not make any progress, unless and until the children have a therapist that encourages and/or supports the therapeutic visitation process, and [does] not foster the ch ildren ' s resistance to therapeutic visits. "
Counsel declared that Cholet " is allied with the mother " and " has acted to undermine the
visits. " He acknowledged that the children had a " long established therapeutic4

relationship " with Cholet
, but questioned the " progress, if any " the children had made in
their m any years of therapy with her.

Karen opposed the request to replace Cholet. The record does not include any declaration or testimony submitted from Cholet on the question of her replacement.
Karen wrote, " Ms. Cholet reached out to Ms. Wilson, but initially Ms. Wilson would not speak with her or share any information with her. " Karen wrote that eventually the two therapists did communicate and agreed to reduce Rolf ' s visits to one per month until

su mmertime. Karen wrote, " R olf had problems communicating with our children long
before M s. Cholet came on board in 2009. " She recounted his criminal history, criticized his lack of gift giving, and pointed out that " [n]one of the foregoing is the fault of Ms.
Cholet. "
The matter was initially set for hearing on December 16, 2013. Karen did not appear. Rolf and minors' counsel stipulated to continue the matter to February 3,
2014. Karen filed her written opposition on J anuary 6.

At the February 2014 hearing, t he trial court terminated Cholet ' s
app ointment and appointed Stephanie Fuller, L MFT , as the minors' therapist

. Karen filed objections to the trial court ' s proposed findings and order which t he court overruled. She
wrote about the relative meri ts of herself and Rolf as parents. She accused minors' counsel of violating the ch ildren ' s fundamental rights, engaging in false billing, and filing false information, among other things

. She accused the court of unethical practices

. She
wrote that she " was never personally served with anything " related to the December 16 hearing
, " and all the documents [she] did receive were mailed. " Karen pointed out that the children had a bond with Cholet and argued it would be " cruel and abusive " to replace
her. S he said that minors' counsel had not given Cholet an opportunity to respond to the charges against her ; he had subpoenaed Cholet for the February 3 hearing " but excused
her when she showed. " The record does not include a reporter ' s transcript of the
Febru ary 3 hearing

.5 DISCUSSION The record does not support Karen ' s contention that the trial court abused its discretion when it replaced the minors' therapist or that Karen did not have notice of the hearing. The trial court reasonably could have concluded that the o rder advanced the
best interest of the children

. (Fam. Code, § 3190, subd. (a)(2) 2 ; see In re Marriage of
Heath (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 444, 448

- 449 .)

Minors' counsel served Karen with his request for an order appointing an alternate therapist by mail on December 12, 2013, together with Wilson ' s supporting
declaration. The matter was initially set for hearing December 16, but the trial co urt continued it to February 3 , 2014

. Karen had ample time to respond before the hearing
, and did so in wri ting on January 6.

The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it replaced Cholet. A trial court may require a parent or a child who is involved in a custody dispute to participate in counseling with a licensed health care professional, or other me ntal health counseling, for
a renewable one

- year term if the court finds that the dispute poses a substantial danger to the best interest of the child and counseling is in the best interest of the child , considering any history of domestic violence and oth er factors . ( § 3190.) No one challenged the trial

court ' s power here to appoint a therapist for the minors

.

Karen contends the trial court should not have terminated Cholet ' s appointment as the minors ' therapist because there was no evidence of " wrong ful
conduct " and Cholet had a long standing relationship with them

. " Wrongful conduct, " was not required. The best interest of the child governs appointment of a therapist. (§ 3190, subd. (a)(2).) The paramount consideration in all matters of child custo dy and visitation is the welfare of the child. ( Sanchez v. Sanchez (1961) 55 Cal.2d 118, 121.) The trial
court has w ide discretion to determine the best interest of the child . ( § 3011 [factors to consider in determining best interest of child]; see In r e Marriage of Brown & Yana (2006) 37 Cal.4th 947, 955 .)

2 All statutory references are to the Family Code.6 The trial court reasonably could have concluded that its decision to replace the therapist " advanced the ' best interest '" of the minors . ( In re Marriage of Burgess (1996) 13 Cal.4 th 25, 32.) A tria l court must specifically design an o rder for counseling pursuant to section 3190 to facilitate communication between the parties regarding the
child ' s best interests, reduce conflict regardin g custody or visitation, and improve the quality of the parentin g skills of each parent . (§ 319 1

. ) Implicit in the trial court ' s order was its determination that therapy with Cholet was not advancing these goals. The partial
record on appeal supports its determination. Wilson, the therapist charged with supervising therapeutic visits, raised a concern that Cholet might be encouraging the children to resist the therapeutic visi ts. Cholet had previously declared her view that visits with Rolf were detrimental, and there is no evidence that her views changed after
the rapeutic visits commenced. Communication between Cholet and Wilson was clearly
strained , as demonstrated by the declarations of Wilson, minors' counsel, and Karen

. There was a perception that Cholet was aligned with Karen. Whether that perception was

re al or imagined, the trial court rationally could have concluded that it interfered with its goal of reducing conflict and improving Rolf ' s parenting ski lls. It did not abuse its discretion when it replaced the minors ' therapist.
DISPOSITION
The order i s affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

GILBERT, P.J. We concur:

YEGAN, J.

PERREN, J.7 Gayle L. Peron, Judge
Superior Court County of San Luis Obispo

______________________________

Karen Liebescher Erikson, in pro

. per

. , for Appellant.
Edwa rd L. Somogyi , APLC, Edward L. Somogyi for Respondent.