Vargas v. Ross (In re Vargas), C082867
Decision Date | 04 December 2017 |
Docket Number | C082867 |
Citation | 226 Cal.Rptr.3d 442,17 Cal.App.5th 1235 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | In re the MARRIAGE OF Cynthia VARGAS AND Christopher ROSS. Cynthia Vargas, Appellant, v. Christopher Ross, Respondent. |
Hassan Gorquinpour for Appellant.
Bowman & Associates and Roger G. Kosla, Sacramento, for Respondent.
Cynthia Vargas, mother, appeals from a court order awarding Christopher Ross, father, primary physical custody of their minor children. She contends the trial court applied the wrong legal standard in reaching its decision. We agree. Accordingly, we vacate the court's order and remand the matter for further proceedings.
Mother and father are both active service members in the United States Air Force. They were married in 2009, had two children, and divorced in 2013. At the time of their divorce, both parents were stationed in South Carolina and the initial custody order was for joint legal and physical custody. After the divorce, father relocated to Washington D.C., returning to South Carolina about once a month to visit the children. Later, mother relocated to serve in Korea for one year.
On September 13, 2013, in anticipation of her relocation to Korea, mother filed a motion seeking sole legal and physical custody of the children. She believed father's assignment inhibited his ability to parent the children, so she proposed the children should live in Nevada with her mother for the duration of her assignment in Korea. She later agreed, however, that the children would stay with father and the court issued an order granting father sole physical custody and granting mother electronic access to the children and visitation when she was "state side."1 The parties would continue to share joint legal custody.
In November 2014, nearing the end of her assignment in Korea, mother learned she would be transferred to Wyoming. She filed a motion seeking sole physical custody of the children upon her return to the states. At that time, father was stationed in Florida, where he lived with the children.
Prior to the hearing on mother's motion, the parties participated in family court services mediation. At the conclusion of that mediation, the parties agreed the children would remain in father's physical custody with specified dates and locations for mother's parenting time, which included the children spending summer break in Wyoming with mother. On January 12, 2015, the trial court adopted the parties' agreement as the order of the court.
In July 2015, while the children were in Wyoming, mother filed a motion seeking custody of the children for the 2015-2016 school year. The parties returned to family court services but failed to reach an agreement. The mediator recommended leaving the children in Wyoming with mother for the 2015-2016 school year and giving father parenting time as outlined in the recommendation. The trial court did not adopt the mediator's recommendation but sent it back for "a full move-away analysis." The court also found the presumption under Family Code section 3047 did not apply to mother's assignment in Korea.2
On August 4, 2015, after performing a "full move-away analysis," the mediator stated that her prior recommendation to leave the children in mother's custody (in Wyoming) for the coming school year was based "on the assumption that the mother had been deployed to Korea for a year (thereby triggering [ section] 3047 ) and also upon the information about the relationship between the parents and their attitudes and demeanor during the [family court services] session." Under the operative custody order, however, the children would be returned to father in Florida the following week. The hearing on mother's motion was scheduled for September 9, 2015. Thus, the mediator found, and mother agreed, it was not in the children's best interest to return to Florida for a few weeks, until the hearing, then move back to Wyoming after the hearing. Accordingly, the mediator recommended the children remain in father's custody in Florida for the 2015-2016 school year, with visitation for mother as often as she could travel to Florida, and for all major holiday and vacation periods.
While she recommended the children remain in father's custody for the 2015-2016 school year, the mediator had "serious doubts" about father's willingness to cooperate with mother. She found that "mother appeared much more willing to bend in order to make the visits work and to cooperate with the father in order to see the children."
Days after the mediator issued her recommendation, mother applied for a temporary emergency order to have the children remain in her custody "pending the next court date" on September 9, 2015. The trial court denied her application.
On September 9, 2015, mother objected to the mediator's recommendation and the trial court set the matter for trial on November 13, 2015. The court also ordered joint legal custody of the parties' children, granting primary physical custody to father. Mother would have parenting time in Florida and Wyoming, as outlined in the court's order.
The November 13, 2015, trial on mother's motion, however, did not take place because on October 7, 2015, father requested a change in the physical custody of the children as a result of his deployment. On October 13, 2015, the court granted father's request and gave mother temporary physical custody of the children pursuant to section 3047.
Father returned from his deployment and on July 14, 2016, the issue of the children's custody went to trial. Mother and father both testified at trial and numerous family court services reports, along with the mediators' recommendations, were admitted into evidence. At the conclusion of trial, the court said if it were ruling on
The court's subsequent "[j]udgment, [o]rder and [s]tatement of [d]ecision [a]fter [b]ench [t]rial" reflected the same findings and conclusions: 5. Mother did not overcome the Fam[ily] C[ode, section] 3047 [, subdivision] (b)(2) presumption.
Mother appeals from this order.
Mother contends the trial court "applied an incorrect legal test" to the question of which parent should have primary physical custody of the parties' minor children once father had returned from deployment. We agree. To resolve the issue we must interpret section 3047 and effectuate the Legislature's intent.
" " ...
To continue reading
Request your trial- Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Cal. Dep't of Fish & Wildlife
-
Reynolds v. Pope
...contention that we should expand this statutory exception well beyond its plain language. We decline to do so. (In re Marriage of Vargas & Ross (2017) 17 Cal.App.5th 1235, 1241 [" ' " ' "When interpreting statutory language, we may neither insert language which has been omitted nor ignore l......
-
Nathaniel H. v. M.P.
...is in the best interest of the child.'" (Montenegro v. Diaz (2001) 26 Cal.4th 249, 255, fn. omitted; accord, In re Marriage of Vargas & Ross (2017) 17 Cal.App.5th 1235, 1243; see §§ 3011, 3040.) "When determining the best interest of the child, relevant factors include the health, safety an......