In Re Marriage of Dunn-Kato & Dunn

Husband appeals from a postdissolution modification order which, at wife’s insistence, effectively prohibited his new spouse from participating in certain school, church and scouting activities when wife had custody of the children.

Husband (who has since remarried) raises constitutional objections to the order barring his new wife from participating in “fundamental parenting activities” with his children and stepchildren. But we need not reach this question because, as husband points out, there was no hearing. Instead, the matter was handled in chambers, with the order delivered to counsel, who subsequently objected by letter to the court.

As in In re Marriage of Hall (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 313, 319-320 [ 96 Cal.Rptr.2d 772 ], “[t]his case appears to have followed the all-too-common pattern in family law of lawyers disappearing into a judge’s chamber and emerging with the judge’s order, independent of any hearing or settlement.” We reverse to require a hearing in the first instance.

I

After a decade-long marriage, husband and wife were divorced in late 1996. They had two children, both bom in the 1990’s. They shared custody, and the children split their time between…