Tinsley

Tinsley v. Arnold CA1/4

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 18, 2024A167677California4,784 words

Opinion

Opinion

I. BACKGROUND

In 2021, the trial court ordered that Tinsley and Arnold share joint physical and legal custody of Minor. Several months later, Tinsley filed an ex parte request for temporary emergency orders granting him sole custody. Among other things, Tinsley declared there had been an incident in September 2021 where police were called to Arnold’s residence and Minor had fallen off a bed. Arnold also filed a declaration, stating that Minor had not sustained any injuries. Child Protective Services (CPS) issued a report concluding that the allegations of physical and emotional abuse were unfounded, and that Minor was not at risk. The trial court denied Tinsley’s request for sole custody, finding that what had happened was an “isolated incident” and “essentially an accident.” Tinsley moved for reconsideration of that order. He argued that there were new facts based on unredacted police body camera footage that rebutted Arnold’s version of the September 2021 incident and the conclusions from the CPS report. Tinsley then filed a DVRO request against Arnold naming both himself and Minor as potential protected persons and seeking sole custody. Tinsley alleged, among other things,…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.