Opinion ID: 4514238
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Younger Child

Text: [¶5] On January 13, 2011, the court (Langner, M.) entered a divorce judgment between the father and the mother of the younger child, granting shared rights and responsibilities and placing primary residence of the child with the mother. On March 13, 2012, the schedule of contact between the father and the child was further modified by agreement. [¶6] On July 18, 2013, the Department filed a petition for a child protection order, alleging that the younger child was in circumstances of jeopardy, in part, because of the father’s “controlling behaviors” and the father’s constantly “speaking negatively” about the mother. On October 15, 2013, the court (D. Mitchell, J.) entered a jeopardy order,2 which placed 2We later affirmed this order after an appeal by the father. See In re L.E., Mem-14-92 (July 3, 2014). 4 custody of the child with the mother, and, on May 20, 2014, entered a judicial review order. [¶7] On May 11, 2016, the court entered an order amending the 2011 divorce judgment between the father and the mother of the younger child, finding that, although the parents continued to have difficulty co-parenting, the parents “shall continue to share parental rights and responsibilities.” The court also amended the schedule for contact between the father and child. As a result, the court found that the parameters of the amended divorce judgment would alleviate jeopardy and dismissed the 2013 child protection matter. [¶8] Nearly two years later, on May 16, 2018, the father filed a motion to enforce the contact schedule in the 2016 amended divorce judgment. The father alleged that the mother had not allowed contact between him and the younger child and requested that the court enforce the contact schedule as agreed to in 2016. On that same day, the mother filed a motion to modify the 2016 amended divorce judgment, alleging, in part, that the existing contact schedule had caused “anxiety issues” for the child. The mother also requested that the judgment be modified to allow her sole decision-making authority 5 over the child’s mental health counseling, and for the child’s counselor to recommend a schedule for contact between the father and the child. [¶9] On May 22, 2018, the court entered an agreed-to interim order in which the mother and the father agreed to certain conditions regarding the child’s counseling and the schedule for contact between the father and child. The court did not enter judgment on the pending May 16, 2018, motions. Later, on January 22, 2019, the father filed a motion for contempt against the mother, alleging that the mother had failed to comply with the contact schedule as ordered in both the 2016 divorce judgment and the May 22, 2018, interim order.3