Jones

FACTS AND HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDINGS

The limited record we have on appeal establishes that in September 2023, following several days of testimony, the trial court found father failed to put the minor

1 child’s best interests first. The court expressed “concern[]” that father was unable to coparent with mother and, instead, “leveraged the schedules and interests for the minor as a means to compel [mother] to acquiesce to what [father] desires.” This, the court concluded, created “hardships” for the minor child. Minor’s counsel also reported to the trial court that the minor child refused to discuss the time he spent in father’s care. In addition, father refused minor’s counsel access to the inside of his home. In addition, the trial court found no evidence to overcome the previously established presumption against father having custody under Family Code section 3044. Even without the Family Code section 3044 presumption, however, the court determined it “would find still, from the testimony and history of the case, that the order that is best for the minor is that the mother have sole legal custody, and that the time share for father be on alternating weekends and identified…