Singh v. Randhawa (In re Marriage of Singh)
| Decision Date | 30 January 2023 |
| Docket Number | C093530 |
| Parties | In re the Marriage of MANJINDER SINGH and NAMRATA RANDHAWA. v. NAMRATA RANDHAWA, Appellant. MANJINDER SINGH, Respondent, |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
In re the Marriage of MANJINDER SINGH and NAMRATA RANDHAWA.
MANJINDER SINGH, Respondent,
v.
NAMRATA RANDHAWA, Appellant.
C093530
California Court of Appeals, Third District, San Joaquin
January 30, 2023
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Super. Ct. No. STA-FL-DWC-2019-0004561
Duarte, Acting P. J.
In this family law case, Namrata Randhawa (mother) and Manjinder Singh (father)[1] were in the process of marriage dissolution when they filed competing requests for a restraining order under the Domestic Violence Prevention Act (DVPA).
(Fam. Code, § 6200 et seq.)[2] After a seven-day bench trial, the trial court denied father's request for a permanent domestic violence restraining order (DVRO) against mother, issued mother a three-year DVRO against father, awarded mother and father joint legal and physical custody of their two children, and denied the parties' respective requests for an award of attorney's fees under section 6344.
Mother appeals. She first contends the custody order must be reversed due to the trial court's failure to properly apply section 3044, which creates a rebuttable presumption that an award of joint physical or legal custody of a child to a parent who has perpetrated domestic violence against the other parent within the previous five years is detrimental to the best interests of the child. (§ 3044, subd. (a); see § 3011, subd. (a)(2).) Second, she contends the trial court abused its discretion in denying her request for an award of attorney's fees under section 6344.
As we will explain, we agree with mother. Although she appeals without a reporter's transcript of the relevant proceedings, the record unequivocally shows reversible error. We reverse the custody order and the order denying mother's request for an award of attorney's fees and remand the matter for further proceedings.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Mother elected to proceed with her appeal on a clerk's transcript and without a reporter's transcript of the relevant proceedings. (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 8.121, 8.122.) This is referred to as a "judgment roll" appeal. (Allen v. Toten (1985) 172 Cal.App.3d 1079, 1082; Krueger v. Bank of America (1983) 145 Cal.App.3d 204, 207.) "The trial court's findings of fact and conclusions of law therefore are presumed to be supported by substantial evidence and are binding upon us, unless the judgment [or challenged order] is not supported by the findings or reversible error appears on the face
of the record." (See Krueger, at p. 207; National Secretarial Service, Inc. v. Froehlich (1989) 210 Cal.App.3d 510, 521-522 [when the record on appeal is on the clerk's transcript alone, appellate review is limited to determining whether any error "appears on the face of the record"].)
Petition for Dissolution of Marriage
Mother and father married in May 2016 and have two children together. The couple's son was born in May 2018 and their daughter was born in July 2019. When the daughter was less than two weeks old, father went to India for about two weeks, which made mother upset. According to father, he was visiting his mother, who was "very sick." While father was in India, mother did not allow him to speak with their son.
After father returned to California, he filed a petition for dissolution of marriage on August 22, 2019. At that time, the couple's son was 14 months old, and their daughter was one month old. The petition for dissolution indicated that mother and father separated on August 19, 2019.
Temporary DVROs
On August 23, 2019 (the day after the petition for dissolution of marriage was filed), father filed an ex parte request for a DVRO against mother. In support of his request, father claimed that mother had a history of domestic violence and had hit him four days earlier (on August 19) after he refused to sign a document indicating that she would have "100% custody of [their] kids" if she ever "left" him. As for this incident, father explained he had left the family home with his son after mother hit him, and that mother was arrested later that same day after she followed him to a friend's house with her brother and demanded the return of her son. As for other incidents of domestic violence, father claimed that mother had hit and threatened him during arguments, and that mother had lost "complete control of herself" when she attacked him a few months earlier. During that incident, mother allegedly shook their son "violently." Father
requested an order awarding him sole legal and physical custody of the children, with no visitation for mother.
That same day, the trial court issued father a temporary DVRO against mother and granted his custody and visitation requests.
On August 30, 2019, mother filed an ex parte request for a DVRO against father. In support of her request, mother claimed that father drank "heavily on a daily basis" and had "threatened [her] and beat [her] up so many times that in the 3 years [they had] been married [she] ha[d] lived with [her] brother and his wife most of the time." Mother explained that father had "abandoned" the family after the birth of their daughter; he went to India without telling her and without making arrangements for the family's care while he was away. Mother also explained that father had recently taken their children from her care, including their one-month-old daughter who was breastfeeding, "under false pretenses to bully [her] and frighten [her] into following his orders and demands."
In the narrative portion of her request for a DVRO, mother provided a detailed description of the recent altercation with father that resulted in her arrest and father's abuse during the marriage. As for the recent altercation, mother claimed that father had scratched his own neck (or directed his sister to do so) and falsely accused her of hitting him to obtain a restraining order against her and "100% custody of the[ir] kids." As for father's abuse during the marriage, mother claimed that father had raped her, verbally and emotionally abused her, punched and slapped her, pushed her to the ground, denied her food when she was pregnant (which caused her to go into diabetic shock), and stalked her when she stayed with relatives "[a]fter a beating." According to mother, she "lost two . . . babies very early on in the pregnancies . . . because of the [father's] abuse." Mother requested an order directing father to immediately return the children to her care, explaining that she was concerned he would "flee with [the] children to India." Mother also requested an order awarding her sole legal and physical custody of the children, with no visitation for father.
That same day, the trial court issued mother a temporary DVRO against father, set aside the child custody provisions of the temporary DVRO father had obtained against mother, and removed the children as protected parties under that order. Mother was awarded temporary legal and physical custody of the children, with no visitation for father.
Temporary Child Custody and Visitation Order
In late September 2019, a hearing was held on the issues of child custody and visitation. In late October 2019, the trial court issued a findings and order after hearing, which awarded temporary joint legal custody to mother and father, with physical custody to mother and visitation for father that resulted in a 30/70 timeshare arrangement. The trial court ordered mother and father to complete a co-parenting program of their choice and to "maintain a completion certificate for future court hearing." The matter was continued to February 2020 for a hearing on the DVROs and a parenting schedule.
Bench Trial and Order on DVROs and Child Custody and Visitation
Over the course of seven days in February and July 2020, a bench trial was held on the parties' respective requests for DVROs and the issues of child custody and visitation. At the conclusion of the trial, the matter was taken under submission. As we have noted, the appellate record does not include a reporter's transcript of the bench trial.[3] However, the trial court issued a detailed 23-page order on August 12, 2020, which summarized the testimony of the 11 witnesses and identified the specific witnesses the trial court found credible.
As for mother's claims of abuse, the trial court found that four witnesses who testified on her behalf "provided credible, believable, and persuasive testimony as to the abusive nature of [f]ather, and as to specific instances of abuse by [f]ather, and his admissions of abuse." In particular, the court found that, during a recorded phone call, father admitted he had slapped mother and justified his conduct on the ground that he was "now a father." The court also found that father had pushed mother and verbally abused her on multiple occasions in the presence of others. Father's verbal abuse included calling mother a "whore," "mother-fucker," "bitch," and other "derogatory abusive terms."
By contrast, the trial court found that father's claims of abuse were not credible and that it appeared he was "manipulating" law enforcement and the courts to "try and gain an advantage in child custody proceedings, and in the dissolution proceedings." The court explained that father's testimony was not credible in "a number of areas." Specifically, the court rejected father's claim that the admissions of abuse he made in various emails, text messages, and recorded conversations were not truthful because he was only saying what mother "wanted to hear." Father's admissions included, among other things, that he hit mother, refused to provide her with food and then gave her insulin injections, got drunk and beat her with a belt, spent the night in his brother-inlaw's driveway while mother was staying at the residence, and offered mother "100 percent custody of the children in exchange for money." The court also found that father's testimony was not credible insofar...
To continue reading
Request your trial