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 court to make such findings. Rather, the explanations of a finding and the discussion of the factors is mandatory under section 3044. Moreover, the doctrine of implied findings does not relieve the court of this statutory mandate.” (Ibid.) Therefore, in accordance with our notification to the parties that we might do so, we will direct issuance of a peremptory writ in the first

3 instance. Petitioner’s right to relief is obvious, and no useful purpose would be served by issuance of an alternative writ, further briefing, and oral argument. (Ng v. Superior Court (1992) 4 Cal.4th 29, 35; see Lewis v. Superior Court (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1232, 1236–1237, 1240–1241; Brown, Winfield & Canzoneri, Inc. v. Superior Court (2010) 47 Cal.4th 1233, 1240– 1244.)

DISPOSITION

Therefore, let a peremptory writ of mandate issue directing respondent superior court to provide the parties notice of, and a meaningful opportunity to be heard at, a further hearing at which respondent court shall explain, in writing or on the record, its findings that real party in interest has overcome the presumption in section 3044, subdivision (a). (Fam. Code § 3044, subd. (f)(2).) At this further hearing, respondent court shall address and make specific findings as to each of the following factors listed in subdivision (b) of section 3044: subdivisions (2)(A), (2)(B), (2)(E), (2)(F), and (2)(G). In the interests of justice and to prevent further delays, this decision shall be final as to this court immediately. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.490(b)(2)(A).) Should the parties so stipulate, the remittitur will issue immediately upon the finality of this opinion as to this court. (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 8.272(c)(1) and 8.490(d).)

4