In Re Marriage of Brown and Yana

Good Law
37 Cal. 4th 947·38 Cal. Rptr. 3d 610·127 P.3d 28
Supreme Court of CaliforniaFebruary 2, 2006S131030California6,455 words

Opinion

Opinion

Baxter, J.

In this case, a parent who had been awarded sole legal and sole physical custody of a child after a contested custody dispute sought to relocate with her child to Nevada. The noncustodial parent opposed the relocation and sought, among other things, to have the matter addressed in an evidentiary hearing, i.e., a contested hearing with live testimony. The trial court denied the noncustodial parent’s applications to restrain the relocation and to modify custody without holding an evidentiary hearing. The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that “in a ‘move-away’ case, a parent without legal or physical custody is entitled to an evidentiary hearing.”

We conclude the trial court did not err or abuse its discretion in denying relief without holding an evidentiary hearing. We therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeal.

Facts

The relevant facts are undisputed.

In 1994, Nicole F. Brown and Anthony Yana obtained a dissolution of their marriage. In 1999, the court awarded Brown sole legal custody and sole physical custody of their son, Cameron, following a psychological evaluation of the parties and a contested evidentiary hearing on custody. After these events, Brown…

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.