Judith Lester v. James P. Lennane
101 Cal.Rptr.2d 86 (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Temporary (pendente lite) child custody orders are nonappealable interlocutory orders; immediate review of such orders must be sought through a petition for a writ, not a direct appeal. A party may, however, challenge the propriety of temporary orders as part of a subsequent appeal from the final judgment.
Facts:
- In October 1997, James P. Lennane, a married Florida resident with business in Sacramento, met Judith Lester, a Sacramento radio host.
- In November 1997, after a brief social acquaintance, Lennane and Lester engaged in an act of sexual intercourse.
- Lennane returned to Florida, and no continuing relationship developed between the parties.
- In December 1997, Lester informed Lennane that she was pregnant and believed he was the father.
- Lennane initially urged Lester to have an abortion, which she refused.
- DNA testing subsequently confirmed Lennane's paternity.
- The child, Ava, was born prematurely in Sacramento on July 12, 1998.
- Following the birth, both parents sought custody, with Lennane residing in Florida and Lester in Sacramento.
Procedural Posture:
- On March 24, 1998, Lester filed a paternity complaint in family court seeking primary physical custody of the then-unborn child.
- The family court (Judge Kobayashi) denied Lennane's pre-birth motion for a custody evaluation as premature.
- After the child's birth, on July 22, 1998, the court issued a temporary order limiting Lennane's visitation to one hour per day. Lennane filed an appeal from this order.
- On November 13, 1998, the court issued a new temporary order increasing Lennane's visitation but denying his request for equal time. Lennane also appealed this order.
- Lennane moved to disqualify Judge Kobayashi for alleged gender bias; the case was subsequently transferred to Judge Ohanesian.
- A five-day trial on the issue of primary physical custody was held before Judge Ohanesian.
- Following trial, the court entered a final judgment awarding primary physical custody to Lester.
- Lennane, the appellant, appealed the final judgment to the Court of Appeal, which consolidated it with his prior two appeals. Lester is the respondent.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Are temporary (pendente lite) child custody orders immediately appealable as collateral orders before a final judgment is rendered in the case?
Opinions:
Majority - Sims, J.
No. Temporary child custody orders are not immediately appealable before a final judgment. The court reasoned that the right to appeal in California is statutory, and no statute authorizes an appeal from a temporary custody order. Such orders are not collateral because they address the central issue of the litigation—custody—rather than a severable matter. Furthermore, they fail the collateral order test from Sjoberg v. Hastorf, as they do not direct the payment of money or compel the performance of an act, but merely permit visitation. Policy considerations demand the swiftest possible review, which is provided by the writ process, not the lengthy appeal process, to serve the child's best interest in stability and timely resolution. Although dismissing the appeals from the temporary orders, the court reviewed the claims of gender bias on the appeal from the final judgment and found them to be without merit. The court also affirmed the trial court's final custody award, finding no abuse of discretion in prioritizing the child's need for stability by keeping her with her primary caregiver in her established home.
Analysis:
This case establishes a clear procedural rule in California family law, holding that temporary custody orders are not directly appealable. It clarifies that the exclusive avenue for immediate appellate review is a writ petition, emphasizing the judiciary's priority on speed and stability in matters involving children. This precedent prevents litigants from using the lengthy appeal process to delay proceedings or strategically entrench a temporary, and potentially improper, custody arrangement. By distinguishing temporary custody orders from appealable temporary support orders, the court reinforces the unique, non-severable nature of custody decisions and protects the judicial system from piecemeal appeals in sensitive family law disputes.
Unlock the full brief for Judith Lester v. James P. Lennane