Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
23 California opinions name it 1 courts 2015–2026 19 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
In Re Marriage of LaMusgagreen2 sentences2026DISCUSSION Mother contends the family court abused its discretion “because it disregarded the governing standards in In re Marriage of Burgess (1996) 13 Cal.4th 25 [(Burgess)] and In re Marriage of LaMusga (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1072 , and instead relied on speculation about appellant’s motives rather than evidence of detriment to the child.” She states the court’s written order after hearing contains “no express findings of detriment” and does not discuss the LaMusga factors.2 “The trial court’s order ‘is presumed to be correct, and all intendments and presumptions are indulged to support it on ma 2026DISCUSSION Mother contends the family court abused its discretion “because it disregarded the governing standards in In re Marriage of Burgess (1996) 13 Cal.4th 25 [(Burgess)] and In re Marriage of LaMusga (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1072 , and instead relied on speculation about appellant’s motives rather than evidence of detriment to the child.” She states the court’s written order after hearing contains “no express findings of detriment” and does not discuss the LaMusga factors.2 “The trial court’s order ‘is presumed to be correct, and all intendments and presumptions are indulged to support it on ma | 5 | 15 |
Jane J. v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences2026(See J.M. v. G.H. (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 925, 935, 937 [affirming family court’s application of the LaMusga factors where it issued an initial permanent custody order and granted relocation]; F.T., supra, 194 Cal.App.4th at pp. 20-24 [holding family court did not apply LaMusga factors correctly to determine child’s best interests in move-away case as part of initial custody determination].) “We review orders granting or denying move-away requests for abuse of discretion.” (Jacob A. v. C.H. (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1591, 1598-1599 ; see Burgess, supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 32 [“The standard of appell 2026(See J.M. v. G.H. (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 925, 935, 937 [affirming family court’s application of the LaMusga factors where it issued an initial permanent custody order and granted relocation]; F.T., supra, 194 Cal.App.4th at pp. 20-24 [holding family court did not apply LaMusga factors correctly to determine child’s best interests in move-away case as part of initial custody determination].) “We review orders granting or denying move-away requests for abuse of discretion.” (Jacob A. v. C.H. (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1591, 1598-1599 ; see Burgess, supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 32 [“The standard of appell | 4 | 8 |
C.T. v. R.B. (In re C.T.)green2 sentences2026(See J.M. v. G.H. (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 925, 935, 937 [affirming family court’s application of the LaMusga factors where it issued an initial permanent custody order and granted relocation]; F.T., supra, 194 Cal.App.4th at pp. 20-24 [holding family court did not apply LaMusga factors correctly to determine child’s best interests in move-away case as part of initial custody determination].) “We review orders granting or denying move-away requests for abuse of discretion.” (Jacob A. v. C.H. (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1591, 1598-1599 ; see Burgess, supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 32 [“The standard of appell 2026(See J.M. v. G.H. (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 925, 935, 937 [affirming family court’s application of the LaMusga factors where it issued an initial permanent custody order and granted relocation]; F.T., supra, 194 Cal.App.4th at pp. 20-24 [holding family court did not apply LaMusga factors correctly to determine child’s best interests in move-away case as part of initial custody determination].) “We review orders granting or denying move-away requests for abuse of discretion.” (Jacob A. v. C.H. (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1591, 1598-1599 ; see Burgess, supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 32 [“The standard of appell | 3 | 3 |
In Re Marriage of Burgessgreen2 sentences2026(See J.M. v. G.H. (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 925, 935, 937 [affirming family court’s application of the LaMusga factors where it issued an initial permanent custody order and granted relocation]; F.T., supra, 194 Cal.App.4th at pp. 20-24 [holding family court did not apply LaMusga factors correctly to determine child’s best interests in move-away case as part of initial custody determination].) “We review orders granting or denying move-away requests for abuse of discretion.” (Jacob A. v. C.H. (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1591, 1598-1599 ; see Burgess, supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 32 [“The standard of appell 2026(See J.M. v. G.H. (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 925, 935, 937 [affirming family court’s application of the LaMusga factors where it issued an initial permanent custody order and granted relocation]; F.T., supra, 194 Cal.App.4th at pp. 20-24 [holding family court did not apply LaMusga factors correctly to determine child’s best interests in move-away case as part of initial custody determination].) “We review orders granting or denying move-away requests for abuse of discretion.” (Jacob A. v. C.H. (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1591, 1598-1599 ; see Burgess, supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 32 [“The standard of appell | 2 | 7 |
Lester v. Lennanegreen2 sentences2026(See J.M. v. G.H. (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 925, 935, 937 [affirming family court’s application of the LaMusga factors where it issued an initial permanent custody order and granted relocation]; F.T., supra, 194 Cal.App.4th at pp. 20-24 [holding family court did not apply LaMusga factors correctly to determine child’s best interests in move-away case as part of initial custody determination].) “We review orders granting or denying move-away requests for abuse of discretion.” (Jacob A. v. C.H. (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1591, 1598-1599 ; see Burgess, supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 32 [“The standard of appell 2026(See J.M. v. G.H. (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 925, 935, 937 [affirming family court’s application of the LaMusga factors where it issued an initial permanent custody order and granted relocation]; F.T., supra, 194 Cal.App.4th at pp. 20-24 [holding family court did not apply LaMusga factors correctly to determine child’s best interests in move-away case as part of initial custody determination].) “We review orders granting or denying move-away requests for abuse of discretion.” (Jacob A. v. C.H. (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1591, 1598-1599 ; see Burgess, supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 32 [“The standard of appell | 2 | 2 |
In Re Marriage of Brown and Yanagreen2 sentences2023(LaMusga, supra, 32 Cal.4th at p. 1101 ; accord, Brown, supra, 37 Cal.4th at pp. 960–961.) 11 These factors, frequently referred to as the “LaMusga factors,” are not exclusive. 2022(LaMusga, supra, 32 Cal.4th at p. 1101 ; accord, Brown, supra, 37 Cal.4th at pp. 960-961.) These factors are frequently referred to as the LaMusga factors. | 2 | 2 |
F.T. v. L.J.green2 sentences2026(See J.M. v. G.H. (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 925, 935, 937 [affirming family court’s application of the LaMusga factors where it issued an initial permanent custody order and granted relocation]; F.T., supra, 194 Cal.App.4th at pp. 20-24 [holding family court did not apply LaMusga factors correctly to determine child’s best interests in move-away case as part of initial custody determination].) “We review orders granting or denying move-away requests for abuse of discretion.” (Jacob A. v. C.H. (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1591, 1598-1599 ; see Burgess, supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 32 [“The standard of appell 2026(See J.M. v. G.H. (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 925, 935, 937 [affirming family court’s application of the LaMusga factors where it issued an initial permanent custody order and granted relocation]; F.T., supra, 194 Cal.App.4th at pp. 20-24 [holding family court did not apply LaMusga factors correctly to determine child’s best interests in move-away case as part of initial custody determination].) “We review orders granting or denying move-away requests for abuse of discretion.” (Jacob A. v. C.H. (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1591, 1598-1599 ; see Burgess, supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 32 [“The standard of appell | 1 | 3 |
Jacob A. v. C.H.green2 sentences2026(See J.M. v. G.H. (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 925, 935, 937 [affirming family court’s application of the LaMusga factors where it issued an initial permanent custody order and granted relocation]; F.T., supra, 194 Cal.App.4th at pp. 20-24 [holding family court did not apply LaMusga factors correctly to determine child’s best interests in move-away case as part of initial custody determination].) “We review orders granting or denying move-away requests for abuse of discretion.” (Jacob A. v. C.H. (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1591, 1598-1599 ; see Burgess, supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 32 [“The standard of appell 2026(See J.M. v. G.H. (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 925, 935, 937 [affirming family court’s application of the LaMusga factors where it issued an initial permanent custody order and granted relocation]; F.T., supra, 194 Cal.App.4th at pp. 20-24 [holding family court did not apply LaMusga factors correctly to determine child’s best interests in move-away case as part of initial custody determination].) “We review orders granting or denying move-away requests for abuse of discretion.” (Jacob A. v. C.H. (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1591, 1598-1599 ; see Burgess, supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 32 [“The standard of appell | 1 | 3 |
Mark T. v. Jamie Z.green2 sentences2024(See Mark T. supra, 194 Cal.App.4th at p. 1128 [court erred in considering mother’s statement that she would not move if her request was denied]; Jacob A. v. C.H., supra, 196 Cal.App.4th at p. 1601 [“Faced with an admittedly 33 difficult decision, the trial court skirted the question entirely and issued an order purporting to maintain the status quo”]; see also LaMusga, supra, 32 Cal.4th at p. 1098 .) Thus, the court abused its discretion in failing to assess E.’s best interest under the LaMusga factors and based on the premise that mother was relocating to Colorado. 2024(See Mark T. supra, 194 Cal.App.4th at p. 1128 [court erred in considering mother’s statement that she would not move if her request was denied]; Jacob A. v. C.H., supra, 196 Cal.App.4th at p. 1601 [“Faced with an admittedly 33 difficult decision, the trial court skirted the question entirely and issued an order purporting to maintain the status quo”]; see also LaMusga, supra, 32 Cal.4th at p. 1098 .) Thus, the court abused its discretion in failing to assess E.’s best interest under the LaMusga factors and based on the premise that mother was relocating to Colorado. | 1 | 2 |
Osgood v. Landongreen2 sentences2026(See J.M. v. G.H., supra, 228 Cal.App.4th 925 at pp. 930, 936 [affirming order allowing mother to relocate to Israel with child living with mother during school year and with father for most of summer and longer school holidays (and father’s trips to Israel) given mother’s stronger attachment despite prior equally shared custody and fact that father was “well bonded” with child]; Osgood v. Landon (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 425, 432, 436 [affirming order allowing Mother to move to Tennessee, with nonrelocating father having visitation one week per month or every other month during the school year a 2026(See J.M. v. G.H., supra, 228 Cal.App.4th 925 at pp. 930, 936 [affirming order allowing mother to relocate to Israel with child living with mother during school year and with father for most of summer and longer school holidays (and father’s trips to Israel) given mother’s stronger attachment despite prior equally shared custody and fact that father was “well bonded” with child]; Osgood v. Landon (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 425, 432, 436 [affirming order allowing Mother to move to Tennessee, with nonrelocating father having visitation one week per month or every other month during the school year a | 1 | 1 |
Edlund v. Halesgreen1 sentence2026(See LaMusga, supra, 32 Cal.4th at p. 1093 [“The weight to be accorded to such factors must be left to the court’s sound discretion.”]; In re Marriage of Edlund & Hales (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 1454, 1473-1474 [trial court did not abuse its discretion in focusing on moving parent’s bond, her ability to care for child, and nonmoving parent’s inadequate care for child despite evidence that child would suffer some detriment from relocation].) Moreover, Mother misapprehends the significance of Father’s ability to communicate with Mother, which weighed in favor of rather than against relocation. | 1 | 1 |
J.M. v. G.H.green2 sentences2026(See J.M. v. G.H. (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 925, 935, 937 [affirming family court’s application of the LaMusga factors where it issued an initial permanent custody order and granted relocation]; F.T., supra, 194 Cal.App.4th at pp. 20-24 [holding family court did not apply LaMusga factors correctly to determine child’s best interests in move-away case as part of initial custody determination].) “We review orders granting or denying move-away requests for abuse of discretion.” (Jacob A. v. C.H. (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1591, 1598-1599 ; see Burgess, supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 32 [“The standard of appell 2026(See J.M. v. G.H. (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 925, 935, 937 [affirming family court’s application of the LaMusga factors where it issued an initial permanent custody order and granted relocation]; F.T., supra, 194 Cal.App.4th at pp. 20-24 [holding family court did not apply LaMusga factors correctly to determine child’s best interests in move-away case as part of initial custody determination].) “We review orders granting or denying move-away requests for abuse of discretion.” (Jacob A. v. C.H. (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1591, 1598-1599 ; see Burgess, supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 32 [“The standard of appell | 1 | 1 |
In Re Marriage of Condongreen2 sentences2023(LaMusga, supra, 32 Cal.4th at p. 1093 [“The weight to be accorded to such factors must be left to the court’s sound discretion”]; cf. In re Marriage of Condon (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 533, 549 [“Great deference must be given to the trial court’s adjudication of the facts.”].) Here, the minute order shows that the superior court thoughtfully considered each of the LaMusga factors as well as other relevant ones to make a reasoned decision regarding T.C.’s best interests. 2023(LaMusga, supra, 32 Cal.4th at p. 1093 [“The weight to be accorded to such factors must be left to the court’s sound discretion”]; cf. In re Marriage of Condon (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 533, 549 [“Great deference must be given to the trial court’s adjudication of the facts.”].) Here, the minute order shows that the superior court thoughtfully considered each of the LaMusga factors as well as other relevant ones to make a reasoned decision regarding T.C.’s best interests. | 1 | 1 |
Maria P. v. Rilesgreen2 sentences2023(Maria P. v. Riles (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1281, 1291 [appellant must show the family court prejudicially abused its discretion erred].) We therefore affirm the family court’s order denying his RFO. 2023(Maria P. v. Riles (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1281, 1291 [appellant must show the family court prejudicially abused its discretion erred].) We therefore affirm the family court’s order denying his RFO. | 1 | 1 |
Burchard v. Garaygreen2 sentences2023(Burgess, supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 37 .) “ ‘[I]n view of the child’s interest in stable custodial and emotional ties, custody lawfully acquired and maintained for a significant period will have the effect of compelling the noncustodial parent to assume the burden of persuading the trier of fact that a change [in custody] is in the child’s best interests.’ ” (Ibid., quoting Burchard v. Garay (1986) 42 Cal.3d 531, 536 (Burchard).) Otherwise, the court “ ‘should preserve the established mode of custody.’ ” (Burgess, at p. 38, quoting Burchard, at p. 535.) In determining whether to modify an existi 2023(Burgess, supra, 13 Cal.4th at p. 37 .) “ ‘[I]n view of the child’s interest in stable custodial and emotional ties, custody lawfully acquired and maintained for a significant period will have the effect of compelling the noncustodial parent to assume the burden of persuading the trier of fact that a change [in custody] is in the child’s best interests.’ ” (Ibid., quoting Burchard v. Garay (1986) 42 Cal.3d 531, 536 (Burchard).) Otherwise, the court “ ‘should preserve the established mode of custody.’ ” (Burgess, at p. 38, quoting Burchard, at p. 535.) In determining whether to modify an existi | 1 | 1 |
Fajota v. Fajotagreen2 sentences2021We recognize that 20 this list of factors is not exhaustive. [Citation.] ‘[E]ach case must be evaluated on its own unique facts.’”].) “We review orders granting or denying move-away requests for abuse of discretion.” (Jacob A. v. C.H. (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1591, 1598-1599 ; see In re Marriage of Burgess (1996) 13 Cal.4th 25, 32 [“The standard of appellate review of custody and visitation orders is the deferential abuse of discretion test.”]; In re Marriage of Fajota (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 1487, 1497 [“We review custody and visitation orders for an abuse of discretion, and apply the substantia 2021We recognize that 20 this list of factors is not exhaustive. [Citation.] ‘[E]ach case must be evaluated on its own unique facts.’”].) “We review orders granting or denying move-away requests for abuse of discretion.” (Jacob A. v. C.H. (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1591, 1598-1599 ; see In re Marriage of Burgess (1996) 13 Cal.4th 25, 32 [“The standard of appellate review of custody and visitation orders is the deferential abuse of discretion test.”]; In re Marriage of Fajota (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 1487, 1497 [“We review custody and visitation orders for an abuse of discretion, and apply the substantia | 1 | 1 |
People v. Woodsgreen1 sentence2015(Thompson v. Thames (1997) 57 Cal.App.4th 1296, 1308 ; People v. Woods (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 1139, 1152 [reviewing court presumes trial court knew and properly applied the law; appellant's burden to rebut presumption by affirmative showing]; see also Brewer v. Simpson (1960) 53 Cal.2d 567, 583 [we must adopt all inferences in favor of the judgment].) Moreover, Dr. Simon addressed this right in his report, which the family court considered in rendering its decision. 13 Relying on F.T. v. L.J. (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 1 (F.T.), Mother claims the family court improperly focused on Father's relation | 1 | 1 |
Brewer v. Simpsongreen1 sentence2015(Thompson v. Thames (1997) 57 Cal.App.4th 1296, 1308 ; People v. Woods (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 1139, 1152 [reviewing court presumes trial court knew and properly applied the law; appellant's burden to rebut presumption by affirmative showing]; see also Brewer v. Simpson (1960) 53 Cal.2d 567, 583 [we must adopt all inferences in favor of the judgment].) Moreover, Dr. Simon addressed this right in his report, which the family court considered in rendering its decision. 13 Relying on F.T. v. L.J. (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 1 (F.T.), Mother claims the family court improperly focused on Father's relation | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Martindale v. Ochoa (In re Martindale)
green
2 sentences2026DISCUSSION Mother contends the family court abused its discretion “because it disregarded the governing standards in In re Marriage of Burgess (1996) 13 Cal.4th 25 [(Burgess)] and In re Marriage of LaMusga (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1072 , and instead relied on speculation about appellant’s motives rather than evidence of detriment to the child.” She states the court’s written order after hearing contains “no express findings of detriment” and does not discuss the LaMusga factors.2 “The trial court’s order ‘is presumed to be correct, and all intendments and presumptions are indulged to support it on ma 2026DISCUSSION Mother contends the family court abused its discretion “because it disregarded the governing standards in In re Marriage of Burgess (1996) 13 Cal.4th 25 [(Burgess)] and In re Marriage of LaMusga (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1072 , and instead relied on speculation about appellant’s motives rather than evidence of detriment to the child.” She states the court’s written order after hearing contains “no express findings of detriment” and does not discuss the LaMusga factors.2 “The trial court’s order ‘is presumed to be correct, and all intendments and presumptions are indulged to support it on ma | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Montenegro v. Diaz
green
2 sentences2025We conclude the expert’s testimony is substantial evidence to support an implied finding by the family court that a “change in circumstances indicates that a different arrangement would be in the child’s best interest.” (Montenegro, supra, 26 Cal.4th at p. 256 .) Further, as stated, the expert submitted an updated report addressing all the LaMusga factors. 2025We conclude the expert’s testimony is substantial evidence to support an implied finding by the family court that a “change in circumstances indicates that a different arrangement would be in the child’s best interest.” (Montenegro, supra, 26 Cal.4th at p. 256 .) Further, as stated, the expert submitted an updated report addressing all the LaMusga factors. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Lasich v. Lasich
green
2 sentences2025I The Move-away Request A. The relevant law and the standard of review Section 7501, subdivision (a), provides, “A parent entitled to the custody of a child has a right to change the residence of the child, subject to the power of the court to restrain a removal that would prejudice the rights or welfare of the child.” If the nonmoving parent challenges the move, he or she has the burden of proving “relocation would cause detriment to the minors.” (In re Marriage of Lasich (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 702, 717 .) In In re Marriage of LaMusga (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1072, 1101 , our Supreme Court held that 2025I The Move-away Request A. The relevant law and the standard of review Section 7501, subdivision (a), provides, “A parent entitled to the custody of a child has a right to change the residence of the child, subject to the power of the court to restrain a removal that would prejudice the rights or welfare of the child.” If the nonmoving parent challenges the move, he or she has the burden of proving “relocation would cause detriment to the minors.” (In re Marriage of Lasich (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 702, 717 .) In In re Marriage of LaMusga (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1072, 1101 , our Supreme Court held that | 1 | 2025–2025 |
In Re Marriage of Carney
green
1 sentence2025(See Burgess, supra, 13 Cal.4th at pp. 37–38 [cleaned up]; In re Marriage of Carney (1979) 24 Cal.3d 725, 730 .) The record, as we will discuss, establishes the court considered de novo the children’s best interest in light of the relevant section 3011 and LaMusga factors. 21 attempted to cause bodily injury, or sexual assault, or to have placed a person in reasonable apprehension of imminent serious bodily injury to that person or to another, or to have engaged in behavior involving, but not limited to, threatening, striking, harassing, destroying personal property, or disturbing the peace of | 1 | 2025–2025 |
NIKO v. Foreman
green
2 sentences2024The trial court further found Father’s testimony regarding the timeshare was not credible, Father “was willing to exaggerate or mislead the Court in order to prevent [the minor] from moving away,” and Father “was willing to answer questions in whichever direction would support [the minor] remaining in Orange County with him.” We do not second-guess these findings. “‘Credibility is a matter within the trial court’s discretion,’ and the reviewing court must defer to the trial court’s findings on credibility issues.” (Niko v. Foreman (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 344, 365 .) We conclude the trial court 2024The trial court further found Father’s testimony regarding the timeshare was not credible, Father “was willing to exaggerate or mislead the Court in order to prevent [the minor] from moving away,” and Father “was willing to answer questions in whichever direction would support [the minor] remaining in Orange County with him.” We do not second-guess these findings. “‘Credibility is a matter within the trial court’s discretion,’ and the reviewing court must defer to the trial court’s findings on credibility issues.” (Niko v. Foreman (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 344, 365 .) We conclude the trial court | 1 | 2024–2024 |
In Re Estate of Fain
green
2 sentences2023(Fain, supra, 75 Cal.App.4th at p. 992 .) In addition, we are not persuaded by Father’s argument that the superior court “placed too much emphasis on the father’s lack of a steady job after his accident, and his inability to drive for a little while.” As shown by the thorough minute order, the court carefully considered the appropriate LaMusga factors and did not appear to place an exorbitant amount of weight on Father’s lack of employment or ability to drive. 2023(Fain, supra, 75 Cal.App.4th at p. 992 .) In addition, we are not persuaded by Father’s argument that the superior court “placed too much emphasis on the father’s lack of a steady job after his accident, and his inability to drive for a little while.” As shown by the thorough minute order, the court carefully considered the appropriate LaMusga factors and did not appear to place an exorbitant amount of weight on Father’s lack of employment or ability to drive. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Abargil v. Abargil
green
2 sentences2021(LaMusga, supra, 32 Cal.4th at p. 1093 [“The weight to be accorded to such factors must be left to the court’s sound discretion.”].) Moreover, our high court affirms what the family court concluded: “ ‘the paramount need for continuity and stability in custody arrangements⎯and the harm that may result from disruption of established patterns of care and emotional bonds with the primary caretaker—weigh heavily in favor of maintaining ongoing custody arrangements.’ ” (LaMusga, at p. 1093, quoting Burgess, supra, 13 Cal.4th at pp. 32-33, italics added.) In this case, “[t]he hurdles to meaningful c 2021(LaMusga, supra, 32 Cal.4th at p. 1093 [“The weight to be accorded to such factors must be left to the court’s sound discretion.”].) Moreover, our high court affirms what the family court concluded: “ ‘the paramount need for continuity and stability in custody arrangements⎯and the harm that may result from disruption of established patterns of care and emotional bonds with the primary caretaker—weigh heavily in favor of maintaining ongoing custody arrangements.’ ” (LaMusga, at p. 1093, quoting Burgess, supra, 13 Cal.4th at pp. 32-33, italics added.) In this case, “[t]he hurdles to meaningful c | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Reveron v. Seagondollar
green
2 sentences2021(In re Marriage of Seagondollar (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 1116, 1127 .) But even if the trial court erred in finding mother effectively had sole custody, father suffered no prejudice because the court alternatively assessed the La Musga factors de novo and it reached the same conclusion. 2021(In re Marriage of Seagondollar (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 1116, 1127 .) But even if the trial court erred in finding mother effectively had sole custody, father suffered no prejudice because the court alternatively assessed the La Musga factors de novo and it reached the same conclusion. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Thompson v. Thames
green
1 sentence2015(Thompson v. Thames (1997) 57 Cal.App.4th 1296, 1308 ; People v. Woods (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 1139, 1152 [reviewing court presumes trial court knew and properly applied the law; appellant's burden to rebut presumption by affirmative showing]; see also Brewer v. Simpson (1960) 53 Cal.2d 567, 583 [we must adopt all inferences in favor of the judgment].) Moreover, Dr. Simon addressed this right in his report, which the family court considered in rendering its decision. 13 Relying on F.T. v. L.J. (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 1 (F.T.), Mother claims the family court improperly focused on Father's relation | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.