Court Opinion

ID: 9389536
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-25 20:02:46.594661+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:28.342773
License: Public Domain

Filed 4/25/23 Wagner v. Wagner CA3
                                           NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
                                      THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                                        (Shasta)
                                                            ----

 JENNIFER WAGNER,

                    Plaintiff and Appellant,                                                   C096753

           v.                                                                        (Super. Ct. No. 189454)

 KEVIN WAGNER,

                    Defendant and Respondent.

         Jennifer Wagner (mother) appeals from a family court order increasing the
parenting time for Kevin Wagner (father) with the minor children. The increase in
parenting time amounted to a change in physical custody, giving mother and father joint
physical custody where mother previously had sole physical custody.
         Mother contends the family court modified a final custody order without finding
changed circumstances, and changed physical custody of the children without notice.
Finding no error, we will affirm the family court order.

                                                             1
                                      BACKGROUND
       In November 2018, the family court issued an order that, among other things,
awarded mother sole physical custody and the parties joint legal custody of their children.
Among other things, the family court ordered father to complete parenting classes and an
anger management course before filing a motion for modification. The family court
enjoined both parents from inflicting physical discipline on the children.
       After father completed the required courses, he filed a motion to modify the
custody order. On October 1, 2019, the family court found father demonstrated a
significant change in circumstances and increased his parenting time pursuant to the best
interests of the children. Mother’s counsel prepared an order after hearing and filed it on
December 3, 2019.
       On December 23, 2019, after one of the children reported that father spanked her,
the family court issued a temporary order suspending father’s overnights. The family
court set the matter for further hearing on January 17, 2020. A subsequent June 11, 2020
judgment of dissolution awarded mother sole physical custody of the children, with joint
legal custody to father and mother. The judgment provided that the operative custody
order and parenting schedule was a January 17, 2020 interim order that was subject to
modification after further hearing.
       On December 1, 2020, Dr. Robert L. Suiter, Ph.D., Psy.D., issued his Evidence
Code section 730 report and custody evaluation (the custody evaluation), following a
psychological assessment of the parties and their children.
       On February 8, 2021, the parties appeared before the family court on mother’s
motion to modify custody and visitation. After the hearing, mother continued to have
sole physical custody of the children and the parties continued to share joint legal
custody. The family court outlined a parenting schedule for father and permitted father
to have assistance from family members during his parenting time. There continued to be

                                             2
no overnight parenting time for father. The Findings and Order After Hearing following
the February 8, 2021 hearing was not filed until September 30, 2021.
       On April 6, 2021, the family court issued another ruling on custody and parenting
time based on interim orders. It referred the parties to child custody recommended
counseling (CCRC) and set a return from CCRC hearing for November 22, 2021. (Super.
Ct. Shasta County, Local Rules, rule 14.01(A) [CCRC counselors are authorized to
render a recommendation to the court on custody or parenting time/visitation].) In the
interim, the parenting schedule would remain status quo and mother would have sole
physical custody.
       On July 26, 2021, mother filed a request for various orders. The hearing on
mother’s request was set for August 30, 2021. Father said he did not consent to any of
the requested orders.
       Following a two-day hearing in January 2022, the family court issued a statement
of intended decision indicating an intent to grant father overnights and both parents
vacation time. Mother objected and the family court issued a revised statement of
intended decision on May 16, 2022, that still increased father’s parenting time. Mother
objected again.
       An amended order after hearing was filed on July 25, 2022. The amended order
reflected the family court’s statement of intended decision, including an order that the
parties would now share joint legal and physical custody of their children. Mother
appeals from that order.
                                      DISCUSSION
       Mother contends the family court modified a final custody order without find ing
changed circumstances, and changed physical custody of the children without notice.
       In dissolution proceedings, the term “sole physical custody” is used when the
parties’ child (or children) lives with and is “under the supervision of one parent, subject
to the power of the court to order visitation.” (Fam. Code, § 3007.) The term “joint

                                              3
physical custody” is used when “each of the parents . . . have significant periods of
physical custody” of their child (or children). (Fam. Code, § 3004.) A change in the
parenting schedule can be significant enough that it amounts to a change in physical
custody. (See In re Marriage of Lucio (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 1068, 1079)
       In order to modify a temporary custody order, including a parenting schedule, the
family court need only determine whether the order is in the best interests of the child.
(Montenegro v. Diaz (2001) 26 Cal.4th 249, 256.) To modify a final custody order,
however, the family court must first find changed circumstances that warrant
modification of an order already found to be in the child’s best interest. (Ibid.)
       Here a final custody order was issued in October 2019. That order, however, was
superseded on December 23, 2019, by a temporary custody order. The December 23,
2019 order was revisited in January 2020, and the family court ordered the parties to
participate in a child custody evaluation. Several more motions were filed , more hearings
were held, and more temporary orders were issued. By the time the parties appeared
before the family court in January 2022, the trial court said it “must start” with the
April 6, 2021 order.
       The April 6, 2021 order affirmed the then-existing temporary parenting schedule,
ordered the parties to CCRC, and continued the matter to a future date when the parties
completed CCRC. Such an order was, on its face, not final. Because the April 2021
order was not a final order, the family court was not required to find changed
circumstances in order to modify the parenting schedule, even if that modification
amounted to a change in physical custody. (See In re Marriage of Lucio, supra,
161 Cal.App.4th at p. 1079 [courts cannot modify a final custody order by changing the
parenting schedule to create a de facto change in physical custody without a showing of
changed circumstances].)
       The order filed on September 30, 2021, does not alter our conclusion. That order
reflected the court’s findings and orders from the February 8, 2021 hearing, orders issued

                                              4
prior to April 6, 2021. In any event, the September 30, 2021 order is not final either
because it too contemplates a further hearing on custody following the parties’
participation in CCRC. Accordingly, we find no error.
       Mother’s claim that the family court changed physical custody of the children
without notice, and on its own motion, is also unavailing. Beginning on December 23,
2019, the issue of custody and the parenting schedule became the subject of numerous
motions and hearings. Numerous temporary orders modifying the parenting plan were
issued, the parties participated in a custody evaluation, and the parties were sent to CCRC
for recommendations on custody and the parenting schedule. When the parties appeared
before the family court in January 2022, it was on cross-motions to modify custody and
the parenting schedule. It was their first hearing after CCRC. Mother has not established
the order was issued without notice.
                                       DISPOSITION
       The orders of the family court are affirmed. Father is awarded his costs on appeal.
(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.278(a)(1), (2).)

                                                       /S/
                                                    MAURO, Acting P. J.

We concur:

   /S/
DUARTE, J.

    /S/
BOULWARE EURIE, J.

                                                5