Marriage of Fuentes and Duffy P. v. Garcia

Filed 2/22/07  Marriage of Fuentes and Duffy CA6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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  This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

In re Marriage of LENA FUENTES

and DARREN DUFFY.

LENA FUENTES,                                                                  H029975

                        Respondent,                                                   (Santa Clara County

                                                                                                 Superior Court

            v.                                                                                 No. 1-04 FL119062)

DARREN DUFFY,

                        Appellant.

_____________________________________/

            Appellant Darren Duffy appeals from an order awarding respondent Lena Fuentes sole physical custody of their child.[1]  Appellant's contentions on appeal involve the admissibility of evidence, the sufficiency of the evidence, and the denial of his various motions.  We find no error and affirm.

I.  Statement of Facts

            The parties' marriage was brief.  Their only child was born in January 2003.  Respondent sought dissolution of the marriage on March 22, 2004.  The parties could not agree on issues relating to custody and visitation.  

            Beginning on September 27, 2004, Jacqueline Galbreath, an assessor with Family Court Services, conducted an assessment of the parties and their child.  She interviewed both parties, observed the child, and reviewed the case file, child custody questionnaires, police reports, and documentation from mediators/assessors in Alameda County.  Galbreath also spoke with the current daycare provider, respondent's eldest child, the paternal grandparents, and respondent's former husband.  On February 12, 2005, she completed the assessment.  She recommended, among other things, that respondent have sole physical custody and appellant have regular visitation.

            On June 22, 2005, a settlement conference was held.  The matter was then continued for a trial on the issue of custody.  On December 22, 2005, appellant sought an order awarding the parties equal physical custody of their daughter.

            On January 6, 2006, the trial was held.  Galbreath testified that there were police reports regarding alleged domestic violence between the parties, vandalism, and difficulty in exchanging the child.  There was also a report that appellant took the child out of state without respondent's written agreement.  Galbreath further testified that there was an incident in which the child care provider was intimidated by appellant and the child lost her placement at the daycare center.  In Galbreath's opinion, appellant was the primary cause of the difficulties between the parties due to his â€