Court Opinion

ID: 9910012
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-14 18:02:39.845073+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:50:36.415742
License: Public Domain

Filed 12/14/23 Marriage of Gethin CA1/5
                  NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or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.

          IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

                                      FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                                  DIVISION FIVE

 In re the Marriage of AURORA and
 SHAUN GETHIN.

 AURORA GETHIN,
           Appellant,                                                    A168083
 v.
 SHAUN GETHIN,                                                           (Alameda County
           Respondent.                                                   Super. Ct. No. HF18890606)

                                       MEMORANDUM OPINION
         On March 27, 2023, the trial court issued a child custody order denying
the request of appellant Aurora Gethin (mother) to receive two additional
days of custody each month of the five minor children she shares with her
former spouse, respondent Shaun Gethin (father).1 Mother has filed an

         1 Under the governing custody order, the parents share legal and

physical custody of the children. However, father has primary custody of the
children during the week while mother has custody from 9 a.m. Wednesday
to 9 a.m. Saturday. Mother’s unsuccessful request, the subject of this appeal,
sought additional custody of the children two Saturday overnights each
month. We decline to recite the full factual and procedural background of
this case for purposes of this opinion because the opinion is unpublished and
the parties know or should know the case’s underlying facts and procedural
history. (People v. Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847, 851 [unpublished

                                                               1
opening brief in propria persona in which she challenges this order on the
grounds that the trial court failed to adequately consider the children’s best
interest, improperly modified an earlier court order by a different family
court judge regarding how parents were to select a coparenting counselor,
and failed to order a follow-up hearing to address ongoing issues relating to
the children’s custody and the parties’ participation in coparent counseling.
Father declined to file a respondent’s brief. Having reviewed the relevant
record, we now affirm.
      On March 3, 2023, the parties met separately with the court-appointed
mediator, Supervising Family Court Counselor Shamont Hussey, LCSW, to
discuss several issues, including the parties’ inability to decide on a coparent
counselor, mother’s request for two additional days of custody each month,
and mother’s concerns regarding the parties’ eldest son’s refusal to abide by
the court order that he spend more than half the week at father’s home due
to what mother deemed the combative nature of the father–son relationship.
The mediator subsequently issued a report in which he recommended no
change to the current custody schedule due to the children’s need for
consistency and predictability. The mediator further recommended that the
custody schedule be reconsidered once parents completed six coparent
counseling sessions, noting that any schedule change should occur during an
extended break from school, such as winter or summer break, to avoid undue
disruption to the children’s schedule. Finally, with respect to the strained
relationship between father and the eldest son, the mediator recommended
that the child be encouraged but not forced to abide by the court-ordered

opinion that simply reviews the correctness of the lower court decision “does
not merit extensive factual or legal statement”].)

                                       2
custody schedule and that the child enroll in individual therapy with a focus
on strained parent–child relationships.
      On March 27, 2023, the trial court heard mother’s request to modify the
prior court order regarding child custody. The court considered the
mediator’s March 3, 2023 report and permitted both parties to testify.
Among other things, father expressed opposition to granting mother two
additional custody days per month, explaining, inter alia, that the children
were currently “in a good state with . . . their extracurricular [activities] and
their academics and I do not want to bring upon them another change at this
time.” Mother, in turn, complained about father’s parenting style, which she
described as “confrontational and aggressive.”
      Afterward, the court adopted the recommendations set forth in the
mediator’s report with two minor modifications: (1) with respect to the
mandatory coparent counseling sessions, the court ordered that if the parties
could not agree on a counselor, they were to submit the names of two
counselors by April 7, 2023, to permit the court to select one and, similarly,
(2) with respect to the court-ordered individual therapy for the eldest son, the
court ordered that if the parties remained unable to agree on a therapist,
they were to submit two names by April 7, 2023, so that the court could make
the final selection. Otherwise, all previous orders, including the custody
order, were to remain in place. The court’s order further stated, “No further
dates shall be set in this matter.”
      On May 15, 2023, following a contested hearing, the trial court denied
mother’s motion for reconsideration of the March 27, 2023 order.
Accordingly, on June 14, 2023, mother filed the operative notice of appeal.
      On appeal, mother has identified no meritorious grounds for disturbing
the court’s order. Among other things, this order was consistent with the

                                        3
mediator’s recommendations to maintain the current custody schedule and to
require the parties to participate in coparent counseling. As reflected in the
mediator’s report, the recommendations were based on the mediator’s
consideration of the children’s best interests, including their need for
consistency and predictability and the parents’ need for coparent counseling
to improve their communication skills prior to any scheduling change. Before
adopting these recommendations, the court heard from both parties, each of
whom expressed their view as to the children’s best interests with respect to
the family’s custody arrangement. The court thus had a reasonable basis for
denying mother’s request for two additional days of custody per month. (In re
Marriage of Fajota (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 1487, 1497 [child custody orders
are reviewed only for abuse of discretion, which occurs “if there is no
reasonable basis on which [the court] could conclude that its decision
advanced the best interests of the child” or if the court “applies improper
criteria or makes incorrect legal assumptions” (italics omitted)]; see Burchard
v. Garay (1986) 42 Cal.3d 531, 535 [“[the court] should preserve the
established mode of custody unless some significant change in circumstances
indicates that a different arrangement would be in the child’s best interest.
The rule thus fosters the dual goals of judicial economy and protecting stable
custody arrangements”].)
      None of mother’s arguments persuades us otherwise. First, the record,
discussed ante, belies mother’s claim that the court failed to adequately
consider the children’s best interests in denying her request. Second, while
mother complains that a different family law judge heard her request than
the judge who was previously assigned to the case, she identifies no prejudice
arising from the new assignment. Nor do we find prejudice. To be sure, we
agree with mother that, as a matter of policy, the family court should strive

                                        4
to have one judge preside over a family law action for its duration. However,
contrary to mother’s suggestion, there is no rule of court that forbids the
assignment of multiple judges in these actions. (Cal. Stds. Jud. Admin.,
§ 5.30(b) [“To the extent possible, family law actions related to the same
family should be assigned to the same judicial officer for all purposes, so that
all decisions that are made in a case through final judgment are issued by the
same judicial officer”].) And, in the absence of prejudice, the mere fact of
multiple judicial assignments does not warrant reversal. (See In re Marriage
of Pearlstein (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 1361, 1371 [“A trial court’s
determination to grant or deny a request for modification of a child support
order will be affirmed unless the trial court abused its discretion, and it will
be reversed only if prejudicial error is found from examining the record
below”].)
      Finally, mother faults the mediator and the court for failing to include
a “date or time frame for the outstanding issues to be discussed.” Without
such date or time frame, mother complains, there is no means to enforce the
parties’ compliance with the court-ordered six sessions of coparenting
counseling. We disagree. As with any custody order, it is enforceable or
modifiable by the court based upon a proper showing by the petitioning
parent. (Fam. Code, § 3022 [“The court may, during the pendency of a
proceeding or at any time thereafter, make an order for the custody of a child
during minority that seems necessary or proper”]; Burchard v. Garay, supra,
42 Cal.3d at p. 535.) However, in the absence of such a showing, the current
custody order stands.

                                        5
                               DISPOSITION
       The March 27, 2023 order denying mother’s request to modify the
governing child custody order and the related May 15, 2023 order denying
her request for reconsideration are affirmed.

                                          Jackson, P. J.

WE CONCUR:

Burns, J.
Chou, J.

A168083/Gethin v. Gethin

                                      6