Filed 5/20/22 Arnold v. Santos CA4/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Jinsook Ohta, Judge. Affirmed.

Jerrod Arnold, in pro. per. for Appellant.

No appearance by Respondent.

Jerrod Arnold (Father) appeals the trial’s court grant of Jenny Pearl Basilan Delos Santos’s (Mother) request to move out of state with their minor child, J.B. We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Mother and Father share joint legal custody of their minor child, J.B., and Mother has physical custody. In March 2021, Mother filed a request to move away from California to Arizona. Family Court Services provided a written report that recommended the court grant the move-away request. It also recommended that Father have the opportunity to parent J.B. two weekends each month in Arizona, in Mother’s community. Then, after at least three consecutive visits within a three-month period, Father would have additional parenting time during school breaks and holidays, as detailed in the parenting agreement.

The parties appeared before the court on June 8, 2021. At the hearing, Mother testified that she wanted to move because the cost of living is lower in Arizona, and she would receive a work promotion if she moved.

Father explained to the court he opposed the move-away request because it granted him visitation for weekend periods, but he did not work Monday through Friday; he had Sundays and an alternating Tuesday and Thursday off of work. Father told the court he wanted J.B. to live with him full-time instead, and he questioned whether Mother would move if the court denied the move-away request.

The court found that it was in J.B.’s best interest to grant the move-away request. It conducted an analysis regarding the best interests of the child on the record. In conducting its analysis, the court addressed the various factors it considered in evaluating what was in J.B.’s best interests, including the stability and continuity of the custodial arrangement, the distance of the move, J.B.’s age, J.B.’s relationships with her parents, and the relationship between the parents. It concluded that Mother’s reasons for seeking the order were valid and not a pretext. It told Father that it recognized the challenges he faced given his current work schedule and invited him to return to court to seek a change in the visitation schedule at a later time, after attempting to work it out with Mother.

The court granted the move-away request and adopted the Family Court Services report, with minor modifications.

Father timely appealed.

DISCUSSION

A judgment is presumed correct on appeal, and it is the appellant’s burden, whether proceeding in pro. per. or represented by counsel to “affirmatively demonstrate prejudicial error.” (People v. Garza (2005) 35 Cal.4th 866, 881 (Garza).) In general, “[t]he standard of appellate review of custody and visitation orders is the deferential abuse of discretion test.” (In re Marriage of Burgess (1996) 13 Cal.4th 25, 32 (Burgess).) Under this standard, our role as an appellate court is limited. We review custody orders to evaluate whether there is no reasonable basis on which the court could conclude its decision advanced the best interests of the child. (Id. at p. 32.) We will disturb a family court’s order only if we conclude that it abused its discretion.

Father contends that the court erred by not recognizing the move-away order that benefitted Mother’s career harmed his career advancement, that Mother’s move to Arizona was not necessary, and that because Father’s work schedule does not allow him to consistently participate in J.B.’s life if she were to move away, it was not in J.B.’s best interests to move out of state. However, Father’s contentions do not address the best interest analysis conducted by the court. (See Fam. Code, §§ 3011, 3020, 3021.) Although Father disagrees with the court’s findings, he does not explain how the court’s analysis was unreasonable or flawed. (City of Santa Maria v. Adam (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 266, 286-287 [“In order to demonstrate error, an appellant must supply the reviewing court with some cogent argument supported by legal analysis and citation to the record”]; Brown v. Garcia (2017) 17 Cal.App.5th 1198, 1207 [plaintiffs failed to supply cogent legal analysis to support claim, so it was forfeited].) Here, the court thoughtfully considered the circumstances and reached a reasonable conclusion. Accordingly, the court did not abuse its discretion.

We note that some of the remaining concerns Father raises in his appeal, like Mother’s alleged actions of sending J.B. to visit a family member out of state without permission, or refusing to follow through with scheduled visits, fall outside the scope of our review because these were not issues considered by the court when it granted the move-away order.

DISPOSITION

The order on Mother’s move-away request is affirmed. Father shall bear his own costs on appeal.

HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

HALLER, J.

DO, J.