Court Opinion

ID: 9946012
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-28 21:03:35.02795+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:24:34.463087
License: Public Domain

Filed 2/28/24 Rosales v. Janelle S. CA2/3
   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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 THREE

 ASTRID ROSALES,                                                     B322055

          Plaintiff and Appellant,                                   (Los Angeles County
                                                                     Super. Ct. No. LF005708)
          v.

 JANELLE S.,

          Defendant and Respondent.

     APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of
Los Angeles County, Firdaus F. Dordi, Judge. Affirmed.
     Rodriguez Law Group, Patricia Rodriguez, and Cierra
Wilson for Plaintiff and Appellant.
     Taub & Taub and Richard F. Taub for Defendant and
Respondent.

                          ‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗
       Astrid Rosales appeals from a parentage judgment, urging
that the trial court erred by refusing to recognize her as a third
parent of minor Lila S. pursuant to Family Code1 section 7612,
subdivision (c) (section 7612(c)). Section 7612(c) permits a court
to find that a child has more than two parents if recognizing only
two parents “would be detrimental to the child.” Astrid contends
she had a long-term romantic relationship with Lila’s biological
mother, Janelle S., and she acted as Lila’s coparent for the first
six years of the child’s life. Astrid thus urges that failing to
accord her legal status as Lila’s parent is detrimental to Lila
within the meaning of section 7612(c).
       As we discuss, Astrid has forfeited her appellate
contentions by failing to provide this court with an adequate
appellate record and with appropriate legal and factual citations.
In the alternative, the trial court’s findings are supported by
substantial evidence. Accordingly, we affirm.
      FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND2
      Lila was born in April 2010 and is the biological child of
Janelle and Marlon M. Janelle and Marlon lived together briefly
after Lila’s birth, but ended their relationship when Lila was

1     All subsequent statutory references are to the Family Code.
2      An appellant’s opening brief must contain “a summary of
the significant facts” relevant to the issues raised in the appeal,
supported by a citation to the page number of the record where
each fact appears. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(2)(C).) As
we discuss below, appellant’s opening brief does not contain an
appropriate factual summary. Nonetheless, we have briefly
summarized the relevant facts based on our independent review
of the record.

                                 2
about two months old. In February 2012, the Los Angeles
Superior Court entered a parentage judgment declaring Janelle
and Marlon to be Lila’s parents, and awarded Janelle sole legal
and physical custody of Lila.
       Janelle and Astrid dated intermittently between 1999 and
2007, and lived together in Hawaii from 2007 to 2008. According
to Astrid, she and Janelle continued their relationship after
returning to Los Angeles in 2008, and they were still dating when
Janelle became pregnant with Lila. Astrid and Janelle broke up
for about six months between December 2009 and May 2010, and
then reconciled and resumed living together until 2016. Astrid
contends that she acted as Lila’s coparent between 2010 and
2016, including by cooking for Lila, caring for her when she was
sick, taking Lila to and from school, scheduling playdates, paying
for some of Lila’s expenses, and holding Lila out as her daughter.
Astrid also contends that Janelle recognized her coparent status,
including by identifying her as Lila’s other parent on school forms
and registering Lila in preschool with a hyphenated version of
Janelle’s and Astrid’s last names.
       Janelle gives a very different account of her relationship
with Astrid. According to Janelle, she and Astrid have not been
involved romantically since 2007, although they remained good
friends until 2016. After Janelle broke up with Marlon in
June 2010, she sought a restraining order against him and lived
for a short time with Astrid’s mother. Subsequently, Janelle
moved into an apartment with her sister. Astrid did not share
the apartment with Janelle, but she offered to care for Lila while
Janelle was at work. Because Janelle worked nights, Astrid
spent those nights at Janelle’s apartment. Janelle contends,

                                3
however, that Astrid never lived with her after 2008, and Astrid
was never Lila’s coparent.
       It is undisputed that Janelle did not allow Astrid to see Lila
after about mid-2016. In December 2017, Astrid filed the present
action to establish a parental relationship with Lila.
       In June 2018, the court entered a stipulated order that
Astrid have three3 professionally monitored two-hour visits with
Lila. By all accounts, the visits went badly: Lila cried and shook
during most of the first visit, and she refused to speak to Astrid
during either visit.
       In January 2019, the court entered a stipulated order that
Lila would continue therapy with her current therapist, with a
focus on reunification between Lila and Astrid if deemed
appropriate by the therapist. According to the therapist, Astrid
was the primary focus of Lila’s therapy for about six months.
Lila repeatedly told the therapist that she did not want to see
Astrid and was uncomfortable when Astrid sent her gifts and
packages. The therapist opined that there was not a path for
reunification between Lila and Astrid because Lila “does not view
Astrid as a family member or even a friend, and does not
understand why she would be forced to see one of her mother’s
old friends.”
       The trial court heard testimony over two days in March and
April 2022, including from Janelle, Astrid, and Lila’s therapist.
At the conclusion of testimony, the court found that Astrid was
Lila’s presumed parent pursuant to section 7611, subdivision (d).
The court further concluded, however, that there was not a strong

3     Although the court ordered three visits, the appellate
record contains a record only of two.

                                 4
relationship between Lila and Astrid, and thus denying Astrid
third-parent status pursuant to section 7612(c) would not be
detrimental to Lila. The court therefore entered a parentage
judgment naming Janelle and Marlon as Lila’s sole parents.
       Astrid timely appealed from the parentage judgment.
                         DISCUSSION
      Astrid contends that the trial court erred by refusing to
grant her third-parent status under section 7612(c), and Janelle
violated the parties’ joint stipulation regarding reunification
therapy. These claims lack merit, as we discuss.
I.    Astrid has forfeited her appellate contentions.
      We begin by addressing the inadequacy of the appellate
record and Astrid’s appellate briefs. It is a fundamental principle
of appellate procedure that the trial court’s order is presumed to
be correct. To overcome the presumption of correctness,
appellants “must affirmatively establish prejudicial error by
providing an adequate record, citing to the record, and presenting
a persuasive argument with citations to supportive legal
authorities. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(B), (C);
Jameson v. Desta (2018) 5 Cal.5th 594, 609; Lee v. Kim (2019)
41 Cal.App.5th 705, 721; Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th
1229, 1246.)” (LNSU #1, LLC v. Alta Del Mar Coastal Collection
Community Assn. (2023) 94 Cal.App.5th 1050, 1070 (LNSU).)
      In the present case, Astrid has wholly failed to provide this
court with an adequate appellate record or argument. Much of
the direct testimony in the trial court was through declarations,

                                 5
which Astrid has not provided to this court.4 Further, Astrid’s
appellate briefs contain few legal citations and cite absolutely no
authority for many of her assertions, including that she need not
demonstrate an existing relationship with Lila to establish
detriment under section 7612(c). Finally, none of Astrid’s factual
assertions is supported by a precise citation to the appellate
record: Her factual assertions either are entirely unsupported or
cite to hundreds of pages of testimony.
       “It is not our role as an appellate court independently to
review the record for error and to construct arguments for
appellants that would require reversal of the judgment. (United
Grand Corp. v. Malibu Hillbillies, LLC (2019) 36 Cal.App.5th
142, 153; Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th
836, 852.)” (LNSU, supra, 94 Cal.App.5th at p. 1070.) Instead,
“ ‘ “[w]hen an appellant fails to raise a point, or asserts it but fails
to support it with reasoned argument and citations to authority,
we treat the point as waived.” ’ ” (Cahill v. San Diego Gas &
Electric Co. (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 939, 956; see also In re
Marriage of Falcone & Fyke (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 814, 830
[“The absence of cogent legal argument or citation to authority
allows this court to treat the contentions as waived”].)
Accordingly, we conclude that Astrid has forfeited each of her
appellate contentions.

4    Some of these declarations appear in the respondent’s
appendix.

                                   6
II.   Alternatively, the trial court’s findings are supported
      by substantial evidence.
      Notwithstanding our conclusion that Astrid has forfeited
her appellate contentions, we review those contentions on the
merits and conclude that the trial court’s findings are supported
by substantial evidence.
      The Uniform Parentage Act (§ 7600 et seq.) provides the
framework by which California courts make parentage
determinations. (M.M. v. D.V. (2021) 66 Cal.App.5th 733, 740–
742; Dawn D. v. Superior Court (1998) 17 Cal.4th 932, 937.) A
person qualifies as a natural parent either by giving birth or by
meeting one of the applicable statutory methods for being
adjudged a natural parent (§ 7610, subd. (a)), including by
“receiv[ing] the child into their home and openly hold[ing] out the
child as their natural child” (§ 7611, subd. (d)). A judgment or
order of the court determining the existence or nonexistence of
the parent and child relationship is, with exceptions not relevant
here, “determinative for all purposes.” (§ 7636.)
      It is undisputed in the present case that Janelle and
Marlon are legally recognized as Lila’s parents under the 2012
parentage judgment. Astrid did not attempt to set aside that
judgment, but she sought to be adjudicated Lila’s third parent
pursuant to section 7612(c). That section provides that in an
appropriate action, a court “may find that more than two persons
with a claim to parentage under this division are parents if the
court finds that recognizing only two parents would be
detrimental to the child.” (Italics added.) In determining
detriment, the court “shall consider all relevant factors,
including, but not limited to, the harm of removing the child from
a stable placement with a parent who has fulfilled the child’s

                                 7
physical needs and the child’s psychological needs for care and
affection, and who has assumed that role for a substantial period
of time.” (§ 7612(c).) On appeal, we review the trial court’s
detriment finding under section 7612(c) for substantial evidence
(In re Donovan L. (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 1075, 1088); thus,
because Astrid had the burden of establishing detriment below,
we may reverse the judgment only if “ ‘the evidence compels a
finding in favor of the appellant as a matter of law’ ” (Estate of
Herzog (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 894, 904, citing In re I.W. (2009)
180 Cal.App.4th 1517, 1527–1528, disapproved of on other
grounds in Conservatorship of O.B. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 989, 1010,
fn. 7).
        To demonstrate detriment, a putative third parent must
establish, at a minimum, an existing relationship between the
child and the putative parent. Thus, for example, in In re L.L.
(2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 1302, 1315, the Court of Appeal held that
the lower court erred by recognizing a biological father as a
child’s third parent because the child did not “have a strong
relationship with” the biological father. The court explained:
“Absent an existing relationship with [the child], there is no
ground on which [the biological father] could be recognized as a
third parent under section 7612, subdivision (c). . . . [A]ll of the
evidence submitted at the hearing, as well as arguments of
counsel, showed [the child] did not have an existing relationship
with [the biological father] at that time. . . . [A]t the time of the
hearing, [biological father] had had no relationship with [the
child] for at least six years. Accordingly, there is insufficient
evidence to support a finding that [biological father] had an
existing relationship of any sort, much less a parent-child
relationship, with [the child] at the time of the hearing.

                                  8
Therefore, the court erred by finding [the biological father] is a
third parent under section 7612, subdivision (c).” (Id. at pp.
1316–1317.)
       Similarly, In re Donovan L., supra, 244 Cal.App.4th at
p. 1078, held that the juvenile court erred in applying section
7612(c) given the court’s determination that a child and his
biological father lacked an existing parent-child relationship.
The appellate court noted that section 7612(c) was intended to
“ ‘protect[ ] children from harm by preserving the bonds between
children and their parents’ (Sen. Rules Com., Off. of Sen. Floor
Analyses, 3d reading analysis of Sen. Bill No. 274 (2013–2014
Reg. Sess.) as amended May 14, 2013, p. 7, italics added) and
avoid the ‘disastrous emotional, psychological, and financial
consequences for a child, who may be separated from one or both
of the parents he or she has always known.” ’ (Assem. Com. on
Judiciary, analysis of Sen. Bill No. 274 (2013–2014 Reg. Sess.) as
amended May 14, 2013, pp. 4–5, italics added).” (In re Donovan
L., at p. 1089.) Thus, the court concluded, “ ‘an appropriate
action’ ” for application of section 7612(c) “is one in which a court
finds an existing, rather than potential, relationship between a
child and a putative third parent, such that ‘recognizing only two
parents would be detrimental to the child.’ ” (Id. at pp. 1089–
1090 (second italics added); compare C.A. v. C.P. (2018) 29
Cal.App.5th 27, 38 [affirming third-parent finding where putative
third parent had “ ‘an existing and significant bond’ ” with the
child at time of judgment].)
       In the present case, while there was evidence of a
relationship between Astrid and Lila prior to 2016, there was no
evidence of a continuing relationship between them by the time of
the hearing, nearly six years later. To the contrary, the

                                 9
undisputed evidence was that Lila and Astrid had almost no
contact between 2016 and 2022, and Lila repeatedly said she did
not want to see Astrid. Further, Lila refused to speak to or
engage with Astrid during their supervised visits in July 2018,
and Lila’s therapist believed that there was no path for any kind
of reunification between Lila and Astrid. On this record,
substantial evidence unquestionably supported the trial court’s
finding that Lila would not suffer detriment if only Janelle and
Marlon were recognized as her parents.
      Astrid asserts that she could meet her burden under
section 7612(c) by demonstrating a relationship between herself
and Lila was “available”—that is, that it had existed in the past
and could be reestablished in the future. However, she cites no
authority for this proposition, and we are not aware of any. To
the contrary, all of the authority of which we are aware holds
that a third-parent finding is permitted under the statute only
where there is an existing strong relationship between a child
and putative third parent. (See In re L.L., supra, 13 Cal.App.5th
at pp. 1316–1317; In re Donovan L., supra, 244 Cal.App.4th at
p. 1078.) By her own admission, Astrid has not made such a
showing here.
      Finally, Astrid asserts that Janelle violated the parties’
stipulation regarding counseling because reunification-focused
therapy lasted just six months and the therapist was unqualified
to provide reunification therapy. But the trial court found that
Astrid had not presented any evidence as to the alleged
inadequacy of the reunification therapy, and she points to none
on appeal. She therefore has failed to demonstrate error.

                               10
                       DISPOSITION
      The judgment is affirmed. Respondent is awarded her
appellate costs.

    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL
REPORTS

                                       EDMON, P. J.

We concur:

                EGERTON, J.

                ADAMS, J.

                             11