Recent Posts in Permanent Custody Awards Category

F.T. vs. L.J. (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 1

F.T. v. L.J., case number D057493, is an important opinion for move-away applicants and their attorneys not just because it clarifies existing law and provides guidance on a host of issues commonly encountered in litigation over these arguably unfortunate situations, but it is going to be widely talked about by the mental health community and will influence how  Evidence Code 730 and Family Code section 3111 evaluators report to the courts because of this appellate court's attention to the details for what various FCS ("family court service" employees) and MHP's ("mental health professionals") opined. It appears that some of them, including the court mediators, took their eye off the ball as established by earlier legal precedent on this topic and the information presented to them.

The parties in this case dated for five or six months and this brief time together produced a bouncing baby boy in January, 2006. For the first thirteen months of his life, the child lived with Mom. On February 17, 2007, however, Mother burned her baby's arm with a hot curling iron "apparently to each him a lesson by showing him how hot it was." Father picked the boy up that evening, saw the injury, and took him to the hospital. Hospital staff called CPS and the police. Criminal charges were filed against the mother.

The child was placed with Dad and Mother's visitations were ordered supervised. Two weeks later he filed a petition to establish paternity and an OSC requesting orders for sole legal and physical custody. The parties were directed to attend custody mediation through Family Court Services but were unable to reach agreement, and so the mediator recommended that the child's primary residence be with Father and that Mother have supervised visits. In April, 2007, the parents stipulated to the recommended order "without prejudice to either party."

Five months later Father filed an OSC request seeking an order allowing him to move with the child to Texas. The parties were ordered back into mediation. At that time following a custody review hearing, the trial court removed the supervision requirement for Mom's visitation. Once again (surprise!) the parties could not agree in mediation, and the mediator recommended that Father have primary physical custody and that he be allowed to move, noting that in November, 2007, Mother had pleaded guilty to one count of simple battery on the child and was given four years' probation, and that she had an eleven year old child from a previous relationship who lived with the paternal grandparents.

For unknown reasons Father's request went off calendar at the time of the scheduled December, 2007, move-away hearing. In February, 2008, he refiled his application and psychologist Yanon Volcani, Ph.D., was appointed to conduct a psych evaluation of the parents and child. He issued a report in September, 2008.

Volcani recommended against the Father's proposed move to Texas, believing that it would interfere with this 2 1/2 year old's bonding with Mother because of the distance (based upon current best mental health opinions on the developmental stages of children). Volcani concluded that telephone, webcam, and other means of contact would not be well suited for a child this age, and had concerns whether Father would "enthusiastically" support the child's relationship with his mother. He also felt that mother had learned from her experience of burning the child, and while her action was 'rash, impulsive, and insensitive' the data did not suggest a "broader abusive intent." He recommended that Mother's timeshare be incrementally expanded.

On September 18, 2008, the trial court adopted Volcani's proposed parenting plan as a temporary order pending an evidentiary hearing, without prejudice, based upon findings that this was in the best interests of the minor. The matter was then lost in the limbo of hearing continuances and further court services mediations ultimately until March 5, 2010.

By now Father was requesting permission to move to Washington instead of Texas, and was intending on marrying a woman living there. Mother had married. Lynn Waldman, a Family Court services counselor, reported to the Court that she had learned that the minor child in 2009 began exhibiting rage, temper tantrums, and other behavioral issues at school and that this three year old was seeing a counselor who couldn't explain "where [Child's] anger is coming from. She interviewed Dr. Volcani but developed incorrect impressions about whether he'd last met with the parents over the two ensuing years after his initial report, and other misconceptions. She recommended against the move to Washington, but stated that Father should remain in his role as the primary caregiver.

In February, 2010, Volcani issued a report supplementing his opinions from September, 2008. Father by then had married his fiance, who herself had two teenagers. Volcani had re-interviewed the parents, the new spouses, and the minor's preschool teacher and therapist. He noted that since the initial evaluation that the parents had been co-parenting in a "relatively cooperative and stable manner." The minor was continuing to have rage issues (e.g., throwing a chair and punching another student) but these were improving. Still, because of the child's age it was difficult to know what was causing it.

On March 5, 2010, the trial court held a hearing but did not permit live testimony and denied the Father's request to move. The court made a number of findings which were not supported by the record. Chief among them was the conclusion that the parents "are not communicating" - when in fact Dr. Volcani actually stated otherwise and that their communications had vastly improved over the two years that had passed. Moreover, without any rational MHP support, the trial court concluded that the evidence proved the child's rage, speaking out in his sleep, and bed wetting all had to do with the parents' lack of a meaningful dialog. The court stated it "feels that the anger is coming from the tension between the two parties."

Maybe, but the court didn't pull this conclusion from any evidence before it in terms of an expert assessment and conclusion that this was the case (the child's own therapist couldn't explain the child's behaviors). Some conclusions apparently exceed what common sense would otherwise suggest.

By the way, what is a three year old doing with a therapist?

Anyway, the Court adopted Volcani's conclusion that the child's healthy development was being impeded, although on different grounds than Volcani had expressed. The court concluded "Father's reasons for the move, that is to join a new wife and family, are not sufficient and a new wife and family in Washington is not a sufficiently necessary reason to move the residence of [Child] to Washington...."

Huh?

Moreover, the Court implied that if Father decided to move anyway that the Court would take custody away from dad and give it to mother, a really bad idea under existing caselaw because of its coercive overtones.

Enter the Established Law of Move-Away

This is what makes this case important - a judge that was justifiably bothered by the impact that the relocation would have on the relationship between a parent (mother) and child understandably struggled not to permit the move. But she was wrong and the appellate court scolds her harshly for it. Her decision was not an exercise of informed discretion.

At the same time, some of the Father's arguments were off-track as well. For instance, he argued that he had a presumptive right to move under authority of Family Code section 7501 which states: " A parent entitled to the custody of a child has a right to change the residence of the child, subject to the power of the court to restrain a removal that would prejudice the rights or welfare of the child." The Fourth Appellate District ruled that 7501 only applies to "final" custody determinations, and not those that are "temporary," following the case of Montenegro v. Diaz (2001) 26 Cal.4th 249. Here the parties had lived under a "stipulation" for two years, but had never reduced it to a final agreement and no court had ever ruled as to any contested matter within the context of an evidentiary hearing. This is a rule that most family law attorneys already know well (which is why the smart ones write their orders to declare the custody agreements favoring their clients as "final" orders). The practical effect of this fact in this case was that "Mother did not have an initial burden to show [that] Child would suffer detriment were he to move with Father to Washington." 

Father also argued that because Mother had been convicted of battering her son, a presumption arose under Family Code section 3044 that she should not have custody of the boy that was possibly "conclusive" if not merely rebuttable. While the idea that the presumption might be conclusive based evidently upon the appalling seriousness of intentionally burning a child is ... creative ... it doesn't track in the slightest what California law says on the subject, and was quickly disposed of by the appellate judges. The justices ruled that "[a] section 3044 finding of domestic violence 'in a family law case changes the burden of persuasion as to the best interests test, but it does not limit the evidence cognizable by the court, and it does not eliminate the best interest requirement."  "Nor does the statute establish a presumption for or against joint custody; again, the paramount factor is the child's health, safety and welfare. And where the section 3044 presumption has been rebutted, there is no statutory bar against an award of joint or sole custody to a parent who was the subject of the order. This is particularly important in move-away cases." In this case the trial court had not made any express findings under section 3044 anyway, so on remand that is a subject the court is directed to pick up.

However, what the trial court did wrong is this:

The father had no burden to prove his move was "necessary". When the trial court opined that "Father's reasons for the move, that is to join a new wife and family, are not sufficient and a new wife and family in Washington is not a sufficiently necessary reason to move the residence of [Child] to Washington...." it supplanted the rule of law with an understandable discomfort with the effects the move would have on Mom's relationship with her son. The issue instead was the best interests of the child, and that decision must be considered in light of the established rule that "the paramount need for continuity and stability in custody arrangements - and the harm that may result from established patterns of care and emotional bonds with the primary caretaker [father here] - weigh heavily in favor of maintaining ongoing custody arrangements." 

Hence, Judge Schall's "order denying Father's motion reveals a misunderstanding of the determination a trial court must make in deciding a move-away motion by a custodial parent. In this case, the trial court, in effect, avoided the ultimate question whether a change in custody would be in Child's best interests were the custodial parent (Father) to move to Washington.... The question ... is not whether the parent may be permitted to move; the question is what arrangement for custody should be made [if and when the custodial parent moves]." A custodial parent is not required to show a planned relocation is necessary.

In other words, the trial court has to assume the plan for the proposed move is a serious one, and has to address the issue of custody as though the move will occur. Moreover, and this is the heart of the decision and the basis for reversal, "[t]o the extent the trial court denied Father's move-away motion with the goal of maintaining the status quo and/or coercing Father to abandon his plan to move to Washington, it erred." [Italics added].

Finally, while the effect of a move will naturally be detrimental to the child's relationship with the remaining parent, this is but one factor for the court to consider and cannot be the sole basis for denying a move. The case of Marriage of LaMusga (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1072 (hand's down the most important move-away case to know), establishes a litany of factors for trial courts to consider in their totality - which is the subject for another Blog.

This case is reversed and remanded to the trial court to evaluate all the LaMusga factors and so exercise an informed discretion before summarily denying Father's request to move.

Okay, sorry, I'm tired now - I'll be back to add some more thoughts!

Thurman W. Arnold, III, C.F.L.S.

Q. My ex-husband and I are involved in a bitter custody dispute. I recently realized he had not changed his Email password, and so I was able to enter his account and review his emails. I found evidence that proves he is using drugs, and I think this puts my son at grave risk. How should I best present this evidence to the Family Law Judge?

A. In my opinion you don't, and I'd advise you to stop snooping his emails no matter how important you think it is for the safety of your child. Beyond the fact that you expose yourself to a civil lawsuit for invasion of the Father's privacy, and have violated various State and Federal laws, you run a couple of other serious risks that may adversely affect the custody outcome you seek - these far outweigh whatever advantage you think the information gives you.

Most importantly as it relates to custody under California law, invading someone's email account and sharing what you find quite arguably constitutes a form of domestic violence. This was established two years ago in a case entitled Marriage of Nadkarni (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 1483. If permanent restraining orders are issued in a domestic violence action that your ex could choose to file against you when he learned what you'd done (i.e., when you submitted the emails as exhibits filed with the court), a smothering presumption arises against you under  Family Code section 3044 "that an award of sole or joint physical or legal custody of a child to a person who has perpetrated domestic violence is detrimental to the best interest of the child, pursuant to Section 3011." In other words, if the family court granted orders against you as a result of this conduct, you may end up assuring you lose your case and hence the ability to safeguard the very persons whom you hope to protect.

In Nadkarni the Husband gained access to the wife's email account and attached copies of her private email between she and others (including her attorney) to show that Mother had lied to Child Protective Services, and that she'd told the children to lie to him as well - and more. Husband argued he had "no choice" but to use these emails because his "kid's safety was at stake" and that he'd accessed the accounts "in sheer panic and desperation" to protect the children. Sound familiar?

Upon discovering this Wife immediately sought temporary restraining orders pursuant to Family Code section 6320.  That section permits courts to issue DV orders to stop behavior that amounts to "disturbing the peace." She alleged that she had never authorized Husband to use the account or given him the password. She also claimed that Husband was using the information to stalk her, and that his activities made her fearful because he'd beaten her badly during the marriage - and was criminally convicted of same.

While a temporary order was issued upon her application, at the hearing for permanent restraining orders her application was denied. The trial court felt that this behavior did not rise to the level of what should be restrained under the Domestic Violence Prevention Act.

Wife appealed and the trial court's interpretation of FC §6320 was reversed. The appellate court ruled "we believe that the Legislature intended that the DVPA be broadly construed in order to accomplish the purpose of the DVPA. Therefore, the plain meaning of the phrase 'disturbing the peace' in section 6320 may include, as abuse within the meaning of the DVPA, a former husband’s alleged conduct in destroying the mental or emotional calm of his former wife by accessing, reading and publicly disclosing her confidential emails." The case was ordered sent back to the trial court to hold a full hearing on the wife's claims. I imagine she won that hearing.

Family law disputants are often acting in "sheer panic" but the ends do not justify the means. You risk blowing yourself up if you attempt to use the material you obtained in any way. Destroy it. I suppose we could come up with exceptions or justifications under extreme facts, where for instance a conspiracy to commit a murder or some other major crime was uncovered, that might trump the prohibition against this type of behavior. But the value of what you have here is insufficient to justify your actions, and the evidence would likely not be admitted anyway over an objection. Even if your husband does not press the advantage you potentially give him by seeking DV orders against you, most judges (and hopefully a lawyer advising you) will question your decision-making abilities once you expose what you did. A lawyer would be ill-advised to submit these emails to the court on your behalf, not merely tarnishing his own reputation but possibly exposing himself to civil liability as well.

Resist your panic, and resist your curiosity. These disputes dial people into temporary insanity and reactivity, and often the result winds up bringing about the very thing they most fear (this dad gaining primary physical custody and reducing your custodial timeshare). There are better ways to skin this cat.

    "(a) At a hearing on any order to show cause or notice of motion brought pursuant to this code, absent a stipulation of the parties or a finding of good cause pursuant to subdivision (b), the court shall receive any live, competent testimony that is relevant and within the scope of the hearing and the court may ask questions of the parties.

    (b) In appropriate cases, a court may make a finding of good cause to refuse to receive live testimony and shall state its reasons for the finding on the record or in writing. The Judicial Council shall, by January 1, 2012, adopt a statewide rule of court regarding the factors a court shall consider in making a finding of good cause.

    (c) A party seeking to present live testimony from witnesses other than the parties shall, prior to the hearing, file and serve a witness list with a brief description of the anticipated testimony.

If the witness list is not served prior to the hearing, the court may, on request, grant a brief continuance and may make appropriate temporary orders pending the continued hearing."

Family Code section 217 will cause a sea-change in day to day family court proceedings across our state, unless family court judicial officers ignore it to the limited extent possible by court rules.  It will likely have immense financial and resource consequences upon not only the courts but upon parties to family court proceedings.  It will force the state government in coming years to study whole new paradigms for resolving divorce and domestic partnership dissolution outside the adversary template, including those currently practiced in New Zealand and southern Australia. 

It will also pressure parties to consider mediation, and collaborative processes which occur outside congested courthouses, much more carefully.  The costs of adversary litigation are about to sky-rocket, making mediation even more appealing from a financial perspective (I have written extensively about the emotional and psychological benefits here an elsewhere).  There simply is no governmental money available to absorb the coming Elkins Onslaught. For more information about an alternative method for resolving family disputes, please visit us at www.DesertFamilyMediationServices.com.
  
At the same time, at least in the short run taken together with some of the other revisions that become effective next month, it may encourage more people to litigate more stubbornly and so make mediation seem less attractive than it did before the changes (just the reverse will be true).  Some folks will mistakenly assume that this invites the use of court hearings as a live-testimony forum for sharing unresolved complaints relating to their marriage or domestic partnership dissolution with the other party in open court.  Instead, judges will sustain objections to such irrelevant material and parties who seek to use Family Court as a platform to air relationship grievances will find themselves alienating the trier of fact in ways that will have adverse consequences to them beyond just the time and expense of the exercise. 

The purpose of today's Blog is to introduce you to section 217 and the new changes.  I will follow up with more articles in coming weeks.  Without a doubt the new rules will make all the information I provide on my websites more relevant and timely for my readers. 

• Will it be useful to the court to permit questioning of this child?
• What will be the risks and benefits to a particular child of being permitted to testify in favor or against a parent?
• How shall testimony occur?  Will it be allowed in open court, or in the judge's chambers? 
• Will there be uniformity between jurists or branches or counties in terms of court policies, or will it just be every department decides for itself how and what rules apply?
• Who besides the judge will be allowed to ask questions of the child?  This includes questioning outside the court proceeding, say when a third party is appointed to obtain the information for the court.
• What type of cross-examination will be permitted, since cross-examination is essential to assuring due process within the adversary court setting by testing the credibility and basis for testimony?
• Will any safety measures be adopted, and will there be any sensitivity to the potential consequences to children once kids are drawn into testifying, since they can't possibly have any understanding of how such testimony will affect their parental relationships with the nonfavored parent?
• Should different standards be applied in deciding to allow testimony from children about their parental preference when those requests are made after therapist based or similar recommendations come out and disfavor a party, as opposed to before they recommendations are known?  After all, what is to stop every disgruntled parent from demanding that their child state their preference (which that parent doesn't like or accept) in every case?
• What testimonial facts will be relevant?  A child's stated preference is one thing, but shouldn't a party or their attorney then be permitted to ask questions about parental coaching?  Spoiling and buying kid's loyalty?  Whether the child wants to live with mom or dad because they don't impose rules in their home?
• Does the court even have enough information to answer the threshold question of whether a child should be permitted to testify without first seeking outside assistance?

In order to succeed in achieving a client's goal of hearing from children when it serves that parent's agenda or perceptions, or in limiting either a child's input or damage to the child by having to voice a preference for one parent over another, custody lawyers and self-represented parties will do well to consider these questions in advance of making requests to the court.

It will be interesting to see if some judges effectively nullify the statutory mandate by imposing roadblocks or alternate routes that keep the questioning outside the family court proceeding itself.

Q.  My girlfriend is having our baby in September, but I don't know if I am the dad.  I really care about her but a friend told me that I need to be careful because if I go to the hospital with her, I have to pay support no matter what.  Is this true?  What is she files a paternity action?

Keith S.

---

Keith:

California law encourages hospitals to get a signed Voluntary Declaration of Paternity ("VDOP") from the male who appears to be a parent at a time when a mother gives birth. This is something that is presented to proud fathers at the time of a child's birth, along with information about legal obligations, and that they are asked to sign.  There may be a lot of guilt and confusion going on at this time. Hopefully there is simply pride.

The public policy is that the State wants to identify biological fathers early on, and to encourage them to step up to the plate both financially and in terms of providing emotional parenting to children. It is also assumed the male who shows up for the birth is most likely the bio dad, and that the parties know it. Obviously, it is not always true and sometimes a man does not turn out to be the actual father. Sometimes he believes he is, and sometimes he is told he is.

Children need their biological parents; this is  critically important. Any bio parent who shirks his responsibility out of financial or emotional selfishness lacks integrity, and their decision has serious consequences on other lives that a true parent will recognize and regret one day, unless they are a sociopath or lack any conscience.

BUT the signing of a VDOP has serious important legal consequences. It is equivalent to a Judgment of Paternity, which may only be set aside for a limited time. While children deserve parents, whether a man that has sex with a mother before a child is born should be determined based only upon that, and their sense of moral responsibility, and therefore to be adjudged a responsible parent also raises integrity and fairness questions in favor of the alleged parent. California law on this subject means well, and may statistically result in the proper outcome more times than not, in my view innocent men who turn out not to be biological parents have rights too. The law says so too, and the question becomes whether you or not you waive your rights to object in a timely fashion.

So, please understand, if you sign a voluntary declaration of paternity next month, you may be adjudicated the legal father of this child regardless whether you are the bio parent. That has privileges and it has burdens. You will have the privilege (assuming the mother does not challenge you before two years after the child's birth) of being a "legal parent" whatever the DNA turns out to be, including rights to custody, visitation, companionship, etc. You will also have the legal financial burdens which I describe under my support obligations FAQ's. For a long, long time, and even possibly forever. 

Family Code section 7573 establishes the effect of a VDOP.   Section 7575 allows you to rescind that declaration but only if you do so within 60 days after birth of the child. Otherwise, after birth, you have a 2 year window to seek paternity DNA testing and an order that you are not, in fact, the bio-dad. The court has discretion to find you are the de facto parent even if you are not bio-dad, however, so even if DNA is conclusive and you are not otherwise the father - absent another man ready, willing, and able to step up, you may find yourself stuck.

These are weighty matters.  In my experience, and in most judge's experiences, woman know who the dad is. Still, there are many reasons why a mother might lie - even including trying to insure that some bad person is never adjudicated the dad. I would never judge your girlfriend and have no opinion on what your status truly is.

So, do what your heart tells you you are the dad, fine. But consider getting DNA testing immediately before you, or the child and you, form any attachments and that way there will never be any question - nor any need to hire me to dispute paternity! 

Best of luck and, hopefully, congratulations!

I am a mom in San Diego County. There are court orders out of El Cajon for joint legal custody and sole physical to me. The old orders said I could move anywhere within San Diego County. I just changed our son's school to north county San Diego. I want to remarry, and have been living with my fiance for 4 years. I believe the schools are better here. Now our son's father is trying to force me to keep our son in the old school south of here, or to take custody.  He says the school our son was in is better. I would have to drive 70 miles for school drop off and pickup.

I have no money for attorney fees because my last lawyer had only a year's experience, and she upset the judge and now I am out $10,000. We have a hearing in 3 days. Please help.

Mellissa

Attorney Fees Question/Assuming There Are Any Further Hearings

You are requesting attorney's fees because the issues involved are some of the most complex in this area of the law (parent relocation), and you are entitled to be on a parity with Mr. Tr xxx, who has been able to retain competent counsel. 

Specifically, tell the Court your request is also made under authority of Alan T.S., Jr. (4/2/09) 172 Cal.App.4 ^th 238 and In re Marriage of Keech (1999) 75 Cal.App.4 ^th 860. Tell the Court that you are in pro per but do not want to be, but that obligation of supporting the child from this marriage plus the financial burden of your other handicapped child, makes it impossible for you to obtain legal representation without an order that Mr. Txxxx pay these fees.

1)      Establish that the final, current order, is for joint legal and sole physical custody to you.  Mr. Txxxx  rights are for visitation only, but not custody, absent a modification of the current orders upon a showing by him of a material change of circumstances. Your move and the child’s new school is not presumptively, without more, a sufficient change of circumstances to warrant a change of custody even assuming he asked for it (I don’t know if he has).

2)      As the parent entitled to the day to day supervisory control of the child per FC section 3007 (defines sole custody), you had a presumptive right to relocate. This is the same right codified in FC section 7501. You have custody; dad has visitation rights.  (Btw, his visitation rights are not being negatively impacted by the move, by his own admission, since his objection only involves relative school ratings).

3)      As to the joint legal custody label, this only grants each of you the rights under FC section 3003 (decisions regarding health, education and welfare) during your respective custody and visitation times.  FC section 3083. It is does not obligate you and he to agree on schooling absent a court order saying you had to first, per 3083, and it must be specific and mention “schooling” (I assume this is not the case).

4)      Even though you were not required to do it, you gave dad notice per FC section 3024 that you were moving north and changing the child’s schooling. F’s atty intimidated you into filing a motion for permission to make the move, when they probably were the one’s obligated to file a motion to restrain the change, and so you have acted in good faith. This is particularly true given the court order from (the ealier date) stating you can relocate anywhere within San Diego County.

5)      It is very important if their responsive declaration did not check the change of custody box, and if their paperwork only asks to restrict the change in schools – you need to be sure you are right about this before making the argument - BUT if they are not seeking a modification of custody, then you have the right to move [7501] and change schools [3003/3083] and there should be no need for any further hearings and your application must be granted.

6)      Next, ONLY IF THEY’HE REQUESTED A CHANGE OF CUSTODY, then the next analysis is: That this is not a de facto joint parenting agreement. This not a Burgess footnote 12 case (which requires a “ de novo” best interests of the child hearing only where there is true parenting agreement). Here the timeshare numbers become important – you want him as low as reasonably possible without sounding incredible. This is a straight Burgess situation, and therefore you have the presumptive right to move and you do not need to show that the your move was “necessary” or even in good faith, except with the added benefit to you that Burgess involved temporary orders and so the court had to do a best interest of the child analysis, while your case involves “permanent” orders and so that is not a ground for an evidentiary hearing (best interests was previously decided in your favor and the question will be not be reviewed again absent Dad showing a change of circumstances).

7)      Changing schools is not an adequate CoC as recently held by the California Supreme Court in Brown and Yana (2006) 37 Cal..4th 947. Here, like you, a parent with sole physical custody sought to move a much greater distance from the dad – Las Vegas. Dad’s objection was that the schools in LV were inferior. He wanted an evidentiary hearing before the move would be allowed, and he sought a change of custody to himself if Mom moved anyway. The trial court correctly refused to allow an evidentiary hearing because the Father had failed to allege sufficient facts showing a detriment to the child by simply claiming the relative merits of schools. Courts won’t step into that qualitative battle. Instead, F needs to show that you are attempting to frustrate contact, which clearly is not the case, or some other “detriment” in his responsive declaration. His failure to do so means he is not entitled to an evidentiary hearing.

8)      Since he is not entitled to an evidentiary hearing, even though a mediation is appropriate in the next month, it would be improper for this court to issue any orders that restrain your son’s ability to start school on 8/20/09 as planned.

9)      Father has failed to meet his burden.You need attorney fees to retain competent counsel for any further hearings.

10)    Finally, under FC section 3044 there is a rebuttable presumption that dad is not a fit person to be a joint custodial parent because of the DV orders.

Best of luck on this. If you get a court order for attorney fees, hire someone!

Thurman Arnold, CFLS