Jaime G. v. H.L.
236 Cal. Rptr. 3d 209, 25 Cal.App.5th 794 (2018)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a court makes a finding of domestic violence but awards custody to the perpetrator, it must state its reasons on the record or in writing, specifically addressing each of the seven factors listed in California Family Code § 3044(b) to demonstrate that the statutory presumption against awarding custody to a domestic abuser has been rebutted.
Facts:
- H.L. (Mother) and Jaime G. (Father), parents of a seven-year-old son, Matthew, separated in 2011, which H.L. attributed to Jaime G.'s violent behavior.
- In August 2016, H.L. alleged that Jaime G. pushed and scratched her when she went to see Matthew, prompting her to call the police.
- Jaime G. denied the abuse and countered that H.L. used crystal methamphetamine, was mentally unstable when high, and had previously abandoned Matthew with a babysitter for three days.
- Jaime G. maintained a stable residence for over a year, was employed full-time, owned a car, and ensured Matthew's regular school attendance.
- H.L. lived in a shared bedroom with her boyfriend, lacked a car, had moved four times in approximately three years, and Matthew had a high rate of school absences while in her care.
- H.L. also had three other children living in Guatemala whom she had not seen since 2007.
Procedural Posture:
- Jaime G. (Father) filed a petition in family court (a trial court) to establish a parental relationship.
- Following an initial hearing, the court awarded joint legal custody to both parents, with Jaime G. having primary physical custody during the school week.
- H.L. (Mother) then obtained counsel and filed for a domestic violence restraining order (DVRO) against Jaime G.
- The trial court granted the DVRO against Jaime G., which triggered the § 3044 presumption that awarding him custody would be detrimental to the child.
- The court reconsidered its custody order on its own motion, ultimately awarding joint legal and physical custody to both parents and maintaining a visitation schedule that gave most of the time to Jaime G., finding the § 3044 presumption had been rebutted.
- H.L., the appellant, appealed the family court's custody order to the California Court of Appeal, with Jaime G. as the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a family court's order awarding custody to a parent found to have committed domestic violence comply with statutory requirements if the court fails to make specific findings on the record or in writing that address each of the seven mandatory factors listed in Family Code § 3044(b)?
Opinions:
Majority - Wiley, J.
No. A family court's order is invalid if it awards custody to a domestic abuser without explicitly stating, either on the record or in writing, its reasoning for overcoming the statutory presumption by addressing each of the seven factors in Family Code § 3044(b). The legislature's intent in enacting the statute was to compel courts to give domestic violence significant weight in custody decisions, and the seven factors function as a mandatory checklist to ensure this occurs. The requirement for a statement of reasons under § 3011 is not satisfied by a general conclusion; it demands specific findings on each statutory factor to allow for meaningful appellate review and to counteract the historical tendency of courts to downplay domestic abuse. In this case, the trial court began to list its reasons but was prevented from completing the on-the-record analysis by counsel's interruptions and failed to provide a written statement afterward. This omission, particularly regarding factors like whether the perpetrator completed a batterer's treatment program, constitutes reversible error.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the procedural strictness of California's domestic violence presumption in custody cases. It clarifies that a trial court cannot merely make a conclusory finding that the presumption has been rebutted; it must create a detailed record showing its methodical consideration of each of the seven statutory factors. This holding elevates the § 3044(b) factors from a discretionary guide to a mandatory checklist, enhancing the transparency of trial court decisions and strengthening the ability of appellate courts to review them. The ruling effectively imposes a non-waivable duty on family courts to articulate their reasoning, ensuring that the legislative goal of prioritizing child safety in domestic violence situations is procedurally enforced.
