Fajota v. Fajota
230 Cal. App. 4th 1487 (2014)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
California Family Code section 3044 mandates a rebuttable presumption that awarding sole or joint physical or legal custody to a parent who has perpetrated domestic violence against the other parent, the child, or the child's siblings within the previous five years is detrimental to the child's best interest, and this presumption is triggered by a judicial finding of domestic violence, not solely by the issuance of a restraining order.
Facts:
- Elenita and Romer Fajota married in June 2005 and had three minor children together.
- Beginning in 2006 and continuing through 2008, Romer perpetrated acts of physical violence against Elenita, including charging at her, throwing objects, destroying her belongings, pushing her until she fell, and, in 2008, grabbing her hair, jerking her head, and causing it to hit a wall.
- By the end of 2008, Elenita moved to Texas with the children; Romer later moved there, and the parties divorced in Texas in 2010.
- Elenita, Romer, and the children moved back to California in spring 2012 and remarried in October 2012; three months later, Elenita discovered Romer's infidelity.
- Upon Elenita expressing her desire for another divorce in early 2013, Romer resumed physical violence and emotional abuse, including calling her names, throwing an iPad, burrito, and iPhone at her, and striking her on the head while she was driving in February 2013.
- In April 2013, during an argument, Romer grabbed Elenita from behind, yelled at her, and pinched her hand until it bled, with two of the children present and one crying.
- Elenita observed Romer spanking the children 'multiple times in a row' and the children 'ducking and covering' in Romer's presence; Romer also admitted to Child Welfare Services that he had struck the children with a belt, and one child reported Romer spanking him for not answering questions about Elenita.
- In September 2013, Romer, without Elenita's permission or knowledge, entered her home, removed various personal belongings, and subsequently sent her harassing text messages, including calling her derogatory names, demanding money or sexual favors for childcare, and threatening a male friend who might watch the children.
Procedural Posture:
- Elenita Fajota filed a Request for Domestic Violence Restraining Order and requested sole legal and physical custody in a state trial court (Superior Court of San Diego County) in April 2013, and the court issued a temporary restraining order and temporary sole custody to Elenita.
- Romer Fajota filed a declaration responding to Elenita's request, admitting to physical contact but disputing the extent of harm.
- Elenita filed a petition for dissolution of marriage in state trial court on May 14, 2013, again requesting sole legal and physical custody.
- On May 15, 2013, the trial court (Judge McAdam) held a hearing where Romer admitted to certain acts of domestic violence, and the court found he had engaged in such acts but denied Elenita's request for a permanent restraining order and ordered consolidation of the dissolution and restraining order actions.
- On May 16, 2013, Judge McAdam reversed the custody and visitation portion of the May 15 order due to an ex parte communication with Elenita's attorney and transferred further proceedings to Judge Groch.
- The parties attended a Family Court Services (FCS) conference in June 2013, which resulted in an FCS report noting domestic violence allegations and Romer's admissions (including striking children with a belt) but recommending joint legal custody.
- On July 12, 2013, the trial court (Judge Longstreth) held a hearing on the dissolution proceedings, and despite Elenita's request for sole legal custody, adopted the FCS report's recommendation for joint legal custody, stating he had to 'go with what the findings were' from the earlier denial of the restraining order; this was formalized in an order on August 7, 2013.
- Elenita filed a second request for a domestic violence restraining order in state trial court on September 23, 2013, detailing new harassing conduct by Romer, and the court issued a temporary restraining order.
- Romer filed a response to the second restraining order request, admitting to entering Elenita's home without permission and other conduct, and also requested the court address child custody and visitation.
- On October 15, 2013, the trial court (Judge Groch) held a hearing where Romer again admitted to certain conduct, and the court issued a one-year restraining order against Romer, but did not revisit the award of joint legal custody, stating, 'If you currently have joint, legal custody—at this point, I'll leave that in place,' and conditioned Romer's ability to 'overcome' the Family Code section 3044 presumption on future class attendance.
- Elenita filed a timely notice of appeal from the August 7, 2013 order and a second notice of appeal from the October 15, 2013 judgment of dissolution; the California Court of Appeal ordered the two pending appeals consolidated.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the trial court abuse its discretion by failing to apply the mandatory rebuttable presumption under Family Code section 3044 when it awarded joint legal custody to Romer Fajota, despite explicit findings and admissions of domestic violence against Elenita Fajota?
Opinions:
Majority - Aaron, J.
Yes, the trial court abused its discretion by failing to apply the mandatory rebuttable presumption set forth in Family Code section 3044 when it awarded joint legal custody to Romer Fajota, despite explicit findings and admissions of domestic violence. The court emphasized that Section 3044, subdivision (a) clearly requires application of a rebuttable presumption that awarding custody to a parent found to have perpetrated domestic violence is detrimental to a child's best interest. This presumption is triggered by a finding of domestic violence, regardless of whether a restraining order is ultimately issued. The court determined that Judge McAdam’s statements at the May 15, 2013 hearing constituted an implied finding of domestic violence against Elenita. Judge Longstreth's subsequent reliance on the denial of a restraining order, rather than the underlying finding of domestic violence, was a legal misimpression that prevented the correct application of the presumption. This error was compounded when Judge Groch, even after issuing a restraining order against Romer in October 2013 based on domestic violence, failed to apply the Section 3044 presumption, instead stating he would 'leave that in place' and conditioning Romer’s future ability to overcome the presumption. The appellate court found no reasonable basis for the trial court’s repeated failure to apply the mandatory presumption. The court reversed the portion of the judgment awarding joint legal custody and remanded the matter for the trial court to apply the Section 3044 presumption.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the mandatory nature of Family Code section 3044, establishing that a judicial finding of domestic violence, not merely the issuance of a restraining order, triggers the rebuttable presumption against awarding custody to the perpetrator. It serves as a critical directive for trial courts and Family Court Services to correctly identify and apply this presumption, preventing judges from circumventing the statutory mandate based on perceived future behavior or procedural outcomes. The decision underscores the legislative intent to prioritize the protection of children's best interests in cases involving domestic violence by requiring a rigorous assessment before custody is granted to an abusive parent, thereby enhancing accountability and consistency in custody determinations.
