Court Opinion

ID: 9403822
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-21 19:05:22.41373+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:09.494765
License: Public Domain

Filed 6/21/23 Marriage of Freeman CA5

                  NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
                                     FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

    In re the Marriage of EDWARD SHELDON and
    JEWEL BIANCA FREEMAN.

    EDWARD SHELDON FREEMAN,                                                                  F085156

           Respondent,                                                       (Super. Ct. No. FL-20-000995)

                    v.
                                                                                          OPINION
    JEWEL BIANCA FREEMAN,

           Appellant.

                                                   THE COURT*
         APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Stanislaus County. Jack M.
Jacobson, Judge.
         Jewel Bianca Freeman, in pro. per., for Appellant.
         Edward Sheldon Freeman, in pro. per., for Respondent.
                                                        -ooOoo-

*        Before Levy, Acting P. J., Meehan, J. and Snauffer, J.
       Appellant Jewel Bianca Freeman (mother) alleges the trial court erred when it
failed to consider a doctor’s note she presented addressing her ability to work and care
for her children at various hearings considering child custody and support. Mother
further contends this error is evidence of the court’s bias and unfairness, resulting in a
violation of her due process rights. While we affirm the judgment entered below, we
have chosen to address additional procedural questions connected to mother’s appeal.
                    PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL SUMMARY1
       In March 2021, mother and Edward Sheldon Freeman (father) dissolved their
marriage and became subject to a child custody order granting both parents joint legal
and physical custody of their three children, who at the time were between the ages of
five and two. While the children lived primarily with their father, mother’s designated
time with her children consisted of at least two weekends a month, and each weekday
between 5:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. In June 2021, father sought to modify the order,
arguing mother was inconsistent with her periods of custody, and would not take the
children for overnight visits. The trial court referred the matter for a Family Court
Services evaluation in August 2021, and while that was pending, modified the custody
order by shortening mother’s weekends with her children and specifying that she would
receive midweek visits on Tuesdays and Thursdays between 5:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. The
completed evaluation eventually recommended father be granted sole legal and physical
custody, and that mother’s right to visitation continue as modified in August 2021. When
mother objected to the recommendation, the court set the case for a “long cause hearing”
and continued the current custody order.
       During the hearing held over one year later on October 11, 2022, mother testified
that she wanted 50/50 custody of the children to be restored. Father testified that after the

11     Facts presented in this summary are taken from the tentative decision issued in this
case that was ultimately adopted by the court as its statement of decision.

                                              2.
original custody order was entered, he would often receive medical notes from mother
indicating she was not able to care for the children and was generally inconsistent in
providing care. Father eventually enrolled the children in daycare for those periods while
he was working. Father testified that he would now like to further modify the custody
order because mother just obtained a job requiring her to work on Thursday evenings and
weekends, when she was supposed to be spending time with the children. Mother
confirmed the information about her new job.
       Both mother and father expressed their concerns about the care the children were
receiving when they were with the other parent. Both parents agreed they have poor
communication and have trouble coparenting. Additional testimony was also provided
by the children’s maternal grandfather, paternal grandmother, and the operator of the
daycare facility the children attend regarding their observations of the children during the
relevant periods of time.
       Citing testimony provided at the hearing, the evaluation prepared in 2021, and
public policy requiring material evidence be shown before changes are made to
permanent custody orders, the trial court continued the custody order issued in August
2021. However, the court modified the order to deny mother visitation while she is
working, and to grant father sole physical custody, but joint legal custody with mother.2
The tentative decision, dated October 14, 2022, became the court’s statement of decision
10 days later when no objections were submitted by the parties. The record is not clear
when the final order represented in this tentative decision was actually entered.

2     The fact physical custody of the children was changed from joint to sole physical
custody in favor of father rendered this an appealable order. (See In re Frost (1955) 134
Cal.App.2d 619, 621.)

                                             3.
       On October 21, 2022, mother filed her notice of appeal challenging the “custody
and visitation orders” entered by the court.3 On November 1, 2022, mother filed her
notice designating the record on appeal, but then 14 days later on November 15, 2022,
filed an amended notice designating the record on appeal. In this amended notice, mother
requested to file a settled statement and checked off the box indicating there had been a
reporter at the designated hearing.4 Mother then listed three hearings between August
and October 2022 that would be addressed in the settled statement.
       Mother submitted her proposed settled statement on December 7, 2022. The
potential error mother identified in the proposed settled statement was the trial court’s
refusal to accept the medical note showing she was cleared to work and take care of her
children. Mother believes this error impacted the decisions made by the court on the
child custody and “timeshare” order entered by the court following the hearing. Father
submitted his response to the settled statement on December 14, 2022. In this response,
father disputed mother’s claim that she was prevented from submitting the doctor’s note
regarding her ability to take care of the children. The court ultimately denied mother’s
request to use a settled statement in this appeal, citing errors in the notice designating the
record on appeal and timeliness.
                                       DISCUSSION
       Mother’s appeal is completely focused on the question of a doctor’s note and
whether any refusal by the trial court to admit that note into evidence was an indication of
bias. While this argument will be addressed, we start with procedural questions
presented by the record on appeal.

3      Mother filed the notice of appeal before the expiration of the 10 day period
designated in the tentative decision, at which time the tentative decision would become
the court’s statement of decision.
4      The court’s order denying mother’s request for a settled statement states no
reporter was present at the October 11, 2022 hearing.

                                              4.
I.     The Record Provided in this Appeal is Flawed
       As with a prior appeal brought by mother on the issue of child support,5 the record
on appeal consists of a clerk’s transcript with a selection of documents filed in this
matter. Although mother initiated the process to include a settled statement in lieu of a
reporter’s transcript, that process was not completed. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.137.)6
We are, therefore, limited in our review because there is only a brief summary of the
hearing at the core of this appeal in the statement of decision of the trial court. A more
complete record and summary of the testimony from that hearing would have been
beneficial to our review. (See Committee to Defend Reproductive Rights v. A Free
Pregnancy Center (1991) 229 Cal.App.3d 633, 637–639.)
       A.     The Procedural Errors Related to the Settled Statement
       Pursuant to rule 8.137(a), a “settled statement is a summary of the superior court
proceedings approved by the superior court.” An appellant may elect to use a settled
statement when the hearing that is the subject of the appeal was not reported by a court
reporter. (Rule 8.137(b)(1)(A).) To initiate this process, an appellant can elect to use a
settled statement in the notice designating the record on appeal, without the need to make
a motion. (Rule 8.137(b)(1).) Among other requirements, the notice must specify the
date of each oral proceeding to be included in the settled statement and identify whether
each proceeding was reported. (Rule 8.137(b)(3).) Once such a request is made, the trial
court has only “limited” discretion in ruling on the motion, and it should be granted
unless there is a justifiable excuse for denying it. (Mooney v. Superior Court (2016) 245
Cal.App.4th 523, 532.) Within 30 days after the appellant elects to use a settled

5     On this court’s own motion, we take judicial notice of the prior opinion in
Freeman v. Freeman (Oct. 14, 2022, F083654) [nonpub. opn.], pursuant to Evidence
Code sections 452, subdivision (d) and 459.
6      All further citations to rules are to the California Rules of Court.

                                              5.
statement, or the superior court clerk sends an order granting a motion to use a settled
statement, the appellant must serve and file a proposed statement. (Rule 8.137(c)(1).)
       In this case, there appeared to be confusion on whether mother’s request to submit
a settled statement was timely. Specifically, the trial court noted in its order denying
mother’s settled statement that mother waived her right to proceed with a settled
statement, and that the court’s statement of decision “contains an adequate summary of
the oral and documentary evidence submitted at trial.”
       Again, mother submitted a settled statement in her earlier appeal addressing child
support decided by this court in October 2022. The clerk’s transcript of that appeal
reveals mother filled out the notice designating the record on appeal indicating her desire
to use a settled statement and received an order approving her settled statement after
certain changes were made. Therefore, it cannot be said mother was unfamiliar with the
process of completing a settled statement.
       Under rule 8.137, a trial court has a special duty to “settle” a statement, when a
reporter was not present at the relevant hearing. (See Randall v. Moussa (2016) 2
Cal.App.5th 929, 934–935.) The availability of a settled statement when there is no
reporter’s transcript available is especially crucial because the “[f]ailure to provide an
adequate record on an issue requires that the issue be resolved against appellant.” (Id. at
p. 935.)
       In this case, the trial court rejected mother’s proposed settled statement citing both
her ”premature” filing of the notice of appeal, and the fact that the proposed settled
statement was filed more than 30 days after she filed her notice designating the record on
appeal. If we view her premature filing of the notice of appeal and the premature filing
of the notice designating the record on appeal as filed immediately upon the entry of the
order or judgment making the court’s decision appealable, then the court’s concerns
about timeliness are potentially moot. We have discretion to treat a premature filing of a
notice of appeal as timely after the filing of the ensuing judgment. (See Good v. Miller

                                              6.
(2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 472, 474.) We choose to treat mother’s premature filing of her
notice of appeal as timely in this case.
       The court’s tentative decision stated it would become the final statement of
decision 10 days after service pursuant to rule 3.1590(c)(4), unless challenged. The
tentative decision was served by mail on October 14, 2022, and the record offers no
evidence the decision was ever challenged. Therefore, we can assume the decision
became final on October 29, 2022. However, we are not entirely sure about this
conclusion because of a confusing reference to the date of November 15, 2022, in the
order denying mother the right to file a settled statement, as the date when the order
became final. The record provides no information showing how or when a final notice of
judgment or order was served, making it difficult to determine what date to assign to the
notice of appeal. This makes the timeliness of the request for a settled statement difficult
to resolve.
       However, we must keep in mind, mother had a duty to take all the necessary steps
to protect her right to an adequate record of appeal. When the trial court rejected
mother’s settled statement, she had the option to seek writ review, or to raise concerns
about the denial in the opening brief on appeal. (Randall v. Mousseau, supra, 2
Cal.App.5th at p. 936.) Mother failed to take either step to challenge the decision by the
court to reject her proposed settled statement.
       While we believe mother waived this issue on appeal, we also find any potential
error harmless. The court specifically provided a detailed summary of the proceedings in
the trial court in its tentative decision. We note for future guidance, however, the trial
court is required under rule 8.137(f) to resolve conflicts presented by the opposing settled
statements so that the appellate court has a proper record before it when resolving issues
presented by an appellant.

                                              7.
II.    The Question of Bias
       Mother contends the trial court judge assigned to her case was biased against her
resulting in a ruling that reduced the amount of time she was allowed to have custody of
her children. Mother connects this belief to the fact the judge made a request for a
doctor’s note showing her ability to take care of her children and/or work in August 2021.
After she obtained that note, mother states the judge refused to consider it at various
custody hearings and especially during the trial held in October 2022. Mother believes
this note proves she was capable of sharing joint custody with father, and that the court’s
decision not to admit the note into evidence was itself evidence of the judge’s bias
against her.
       Case law has recognized that California has a substantial statutory system
available to address alleged judicial bias. (Schmidt v. Superior Court (2020) 44
Cal.App.5th 570, 588.) If a party is concerned that there is judicial bias, they are required
to raise an objection in the trial court pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 170.6,
and, if dissatisfied with the ruling in the trial court, to then petition for a writ of mandate
from the appellate court, which is the exclusive way to review such a challenge.
(Schmidt, at p. 588.) Repeated rulings against a party in the trial court are not grounds
alone for a finding of bias. (Andrews v. Agricultural Labor Relations Bd. (1981) 28
Cal.3d 781, 795–796.) However, the failure to raise a challenge of bias in the trial court
will result in a waiver of this issue on appeal. (See Frisk v. Superior Court (2011) 200
Cal.App.4th 402, 406.)
       Finally, we note, an order of the lower court is presumed correct unless an
appellant affirmatively demonstrates there is prejudicial error. (Herrera v. Doctors
Medical Center of Modesto, Inc. (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 538, 546.) All “intendments and
presumptions are indulged to support it on matters as to which the record is silent.”
(Ibid., citing Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564.) Mother has not

                                               8.
established prejudicial error in this appeal due to the failure to admit as evidence the
doctor’s note addressing her ability to work and/or take care of her children.
                                      DISPOSITION
       The order modifying the custody order in this case is affirmed. No costs are
awarded in this appeal.

                                              9.