Trice-Lewis

DISCUSSION

We agree that respondent court did not fully comply with the suggestive Palma notice. Specifically, though respondent court provided the parties with the required notice, it did not provide them with a meaningful opportunity to be heard. In addition, the record confirms petitioner’s claim that respondent court did not make specific findings on the factors in subdivisions (b)(2)(A), (b)(2)(B), (b)(2)(E), and (b)(2)(G) of section 3044 in its modified ruling. We also find that respondent court did not sufficiently address factor (b)(2)(F). To reiterate, the “in writing or on the record” requirement of section 3044, subdivision (f)(2), “is most reasonably interpreted to require specific mention of each of the [eight] section 3044 factors.” (Jaime G. v. H.L. (2018) 25 Cal.App.5th 794, 805.) This requirement furthers the legislative goal of requiring family courts to give due weight to the issue of domestic violence and facilitates meaningful appellate review. (Id. at p. 806.) A court’s failure to comply with these requirements is not harmless error. (Abdelqader v. Abraham (2022) 76 Cal.App.5th 186, 198.) “There is no requirement under [the] statute that a party request a…