A.H. v. T.M.

Filed 3/22/06 A.H. v. T.M. CA2/7

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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 SEVEN

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Susan M. Speer, Judge. Affirmed.

A. M. H. in propria persona for Petitioner and Appellant.

Rehwald Rameson Lewis & Glasner, Thomas Trent Lewis and Kevin James Mooney for Respondent.

____________________________

After extensive litigation covering several years, the trial court issued temporary orders awarding father sole legal and physical custody of the parties' minor child. The court issued numerous other orders, including orders for mother to pay father monthly child support. Mother appeals, claiming she was denied due process of law and the right to a fair trial because the court restricted her evidence to declarations of witnesses and rejected live testimony. In addition, mother claims the court failed to review her documentary evidence submitted to contradict testimony in the declarations of father's witnesses. The result, mother claims, is the trial court's rulings are based on false evidence. Mother argues these errors were exacerbated by the alleged ineffectiveness of her trial counsel. We affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS BELOW

Mother, A. M. H., and father, T. M. M., had a dating relationship in the 1980's. They rekindled their friendship in the summer of 1998. By the fall of 1998 mother, father and J., mother's then 10-year-old daughter from a prior relationship, were living together in a house father had recently purchased.

Father operated a sign-making business from his home. Mother claimed to have worked 40 to 60 hours a week assisting father in building this business. Father denied mother worked in his business in any capacity.

Mother had numerous other skills and interests. She was a professional photographer and periodically did photo shoots for aspiring models and/or actresses. Mother was an actress herself. Mother held an aesthetician's license and specialized in facials and massages. Mother in addition, acted as her daughter, J.'s, personal manager for J.'s acting career in movies and commercials.

Mother became pregnant and their daughter, A., was born in July 1999.

Mother and father's relationship deteriorated. Mother claimed she became disillusioned when she learned father would not fulfill his promise to marry her and was in fact still married to his former wife. Father believed mother had troubling and serious anger issues.

In November 2000 mother got upset about father's alleged abuse of her dog and hit father in the back of his head. Father claimed he was holding their daughter A. at the time. Father called the police and reported he had been a victim of domestic violence. Mother was arrested and ordered to attend anger management classes. After four classes the deputy district attorney in charge of the case concluded four anger management classes were enough and dismissed the case.

On January 8, 2001 father filed an order to show cause alleging domestic violence and seeking a temporary restraining order against mother. Mother and her daughter J. were physically removed from father's house on January 10, 2001. A few days later the restraining order was dissolved as it pertained to A. The parties ultimately entered into a stipulation agreeing to share custody of A. on a 50-50 basis. The parties agreed to submit to a full custody evaluation as part of the court-supervised stipulation.

Mother and her mother then jointly purchased a multi-family dwelling in Chatsworth. Both their names were on title to the property. However, the issues of who secured the money purchase loan, who was entitled to the rental payments, and who was or should have been claiming the rental income and expenses on tax returns and the like remained a matter of much dispute and controversy. According to father, mother received the rental income but did not report it. Mother claimed her mother secured the loan, deserved all the rental payments and was claiming rental income and expenses on her tax returns.

Around this time mother started receiving public assistance. Mother started a government funded vocational school program and claimed she earned little if any income. Child support she otherwise received for J. now went directly to the district attorney which then entitled mother to A.F.D.C. and food stamps.

In late January 2001 mother filed her own order to show cause to establish paternity and to seek custody of A. and child support from father. Father's and mother's OSCs were consolidated for hearing purposes. What ensued was a combined trial which continued for nearly a year and a half. The actual trial of the custody issue required more than six days and did not begin until November 2002. However, prior to this delayed trial date the parties filed volumes of party declarations, witness declarations, financial data, medical records, police reports, investigative reports by Child Protective Services and all manner of documentary evidence bearing directly and/or tangentially on the issues of custody and child support. The contents of these documents show an increasingly hostile relationship between the parents and excessive involvement with police, the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS), and other governmental agencies.

Father produced all manner of evidence in an attempt to show mother was unfit to have custody of their child. He produced declarations from persons who claimed mother verbally and physically abused her children by screaming at them, cursing at them, calling them vile names, and on occasion slapping them. Father claimed mother had anger issues and was prone to committing abuse. He produced evidence regarding an incident in which mother was accused of biting A. He reported the biting incident to A.'s day care center. Personnel there in turn reported it to child protective services. Father claimed mother was so inattentive A. had developed a chronic and extreme diaper rash. He produced photos of the rash for the court's review. Father also accused mother of misappropriating J.'s earnings from acting to her own use.

Father expressed concerns about A. being exposed to sexually explicit and inappropriate material if mother retained custody. He claimed mother had J. audition for roles in films which were sexually explicit and which would have required J., at 11 years old, to masturbate on screen and be involved in other sexually charged scenes. Father claimed mother was so desensitized to sexual matters he was fearful mother's influence would also desensitize A. He explained mother had been abused as a child, mother had acted in pornographic movies, and mother kept a nude photograph of herself in the living room in plain view of the children and anyone else who came into the home. He also charged mother with being insensitive and inattentive to her children and caring more about her dogs' than her children's welfare.

Mother produced an equal amount of evidence in an attempt to show she was a loving and devoted mother. Several friends and acquaintances provided affidavits attesting to mother's good qualities. Mother admitted screaming at father and admitted cursing too much in front of the children. However, she denied biting A.'s arm. Mother submitted a report from Child Protective Services which had investigated father's report of A. claiming she got a bruise on her arm when mother bit her. When the incident was investigated A. denied mother had bitten her. The director of A.'s day care center saw the bruise but did not see any teeth marks and in her judgment the mark did not look like the result of abuse. The report concluded the allegation of mother biting A. was â€