Nelson v. Lowe
Filed 5/30/06 Nelson v. Lowe CA2/4
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FOUR
WAYDE NELSON, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. NANCY LOWE, Defendant and Respondent. | B179260 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. PF001959) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court for Los Angeles County, Robert W. Zakon, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.) Affirmed.
Wayde Nelson, in propria persona; and Patricia J. Barry for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Stuart L. Olster for Defendant and Respondent.
Linda C. Grillo for Minor.
Appellant Wayde Nelson filed a petition against respondent Nancy Lowe, seeking legal and physical custody of their daughter, Heather. After two and a half years of often acrimonious proceedings, the trial court entered a judgment awarding legal and physical custody of Heather to Lowe, allowing Nelson monitored visitation, ordering Nelson to complete parenting without conflict and anger management classes, and enjoining Nelson and Lowe from telephoning each other except in certain circumstances. Nelson appeals from the judgment. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
On March 15, 2002, Nelson, represented by counsel, filed in Los Angeles Superior Court, North Valley District, a petition to establish parental relationship under the Uniform Parentage Act, seeking sole legal and physical custody of his daughter Heather. That same day, he also filed an order to show cause for an injunctive order, in which he sought joint legal custody and sole physical custody of Heather, with reasonable monitored visitation for Lowe, Heather's mother. In her response to the order to show cause, Lowe asked for joint legal custody and sole physical custody, with reasonable visitation for Nelson.
A year later, in April 2003, the parties stipulated to have a psychological child custody evaluation done, with Nelson advancing the costs. Allocation of the costs was subject to reevaluation by the court. That evaluation was not done, however, because Nelson said that he could not afford it. Instead, in April 2004, at Nelson's request, the court ordered the Los Angeles Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) to conduct an investigation and provide a report with its opinions, if any, regarding custody and visitation. The parties also stipulated, in June 2004, to the appointment of counsel for Heather; Lowe's parents offered to pay that counsel's fees. With both parties' counsel's agreement, the court appointed Linda Grillo to represent Heather in the proceedings. The court noted that Grillo would appear as the first witness at trial, to provide a report to the court.
The case was called for trial on August 2, 2004. As planned, the court began by asking Grillo to give an oral report and recommendations. In her report, Grillo discussed her meetings with Nelson, Lowe, and Heather, described Nelson's and Lowe's homes, and noted that she had reviewed the DCFS report and a â€
