Ellis

I. BACKGROUND

Minor was born to Mother and Father in February 2001. Mother and Father’s relationship ended that same year, and in 2002, Father filed a paternity action. Pursuant to a November 2009 stipulated judgment, the parents share joint legal and physical custody of Minor, and she lives most of the year in Massachusetts with Mother, who has since remarried. Father lives in Southern California at his parents’ home, and he has custody of Minor for five weeks every summer, on spring breaks, and on alternating winter breaks.

A. Father Gets in a Physical Altercation in Minor’s Presence In April 2014, Minor was in Southern California for her weeklong spring break visit with Father. Generally, Father and Minor would go shopping, play games, play softball and tennis, and go to the bookstore during her visits. While at Father’s house, Minor would sleep on the sofa in his bedroom and Father would sleep downstairs.

2 On April 21, 2014, the day after her arrival, Minor witnessed an argument between Father and his adult brother-in-law Andy. Andy began to touch the cables behind Father’s TV console, and Father asked him not to do so. Andy responded, “I can do what I want. What are…

—Appellant Crystal L. Lyons (Mother) appeals the denial of her request for sole legal and physical custody of her minor daughter (Minor) and to reinstate child support from respondent Jonathan C. Ellis (Father). Father engaged in a physical altercation with his brother-in-law in a room where Minor was present. When informed of the altercation, Mother sought and obtained a temporary protective order in Massachusetts, her state of residence, that barred Father from contacting Minor. The Massachusetts court continued that order in force until the Los Angeles Superior Court—where the family law proceedings had originated—heard Mother’s request to change the existing joint custody order. We consider whether the family law court abused its discretion when it denied Mother’s request for sole custody of Minor, and in answering that question, we address what effect California law required the family law court to give to the Massachusetts court’s findings.

I. BACKGROUND

Minor was born to Mother and Father in February 2001. Mother and Father’s relationship ended that same year, and in 2002, Father filed a *407 paternity action. Pursuant to a November 2009 stipulated judgment, the…

Concurring.—I concur in the judgment including the analysis concerning the meritless attack on the integrity of the family law court. I write separately to explain why I believe the limited reversal and remand is warranted. It is presumed a trial court knows the law and has applied it. (Evid. Code § 664; People v. Sullivan (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 524, 549-550 [ 59 Cal.Rptr.3d 876 ].) But here, the family law court’s findings made no reference to Family Code section 3044 which, as my colleagues correctly note, is the controlling issue. Thus, in my view, the presumption the *420 trial court applied the law is overcome by the absence of any findings directed at the crucial issue before the family law court. But how to resolve the dispute’s merits is a matter to be left in the good hands of the family law court.

A petition for a rehearing was denied September 2, 2016, and on August 11, 2016, the opinion was modified to read as printed above. Appellant’s petition for review by the Supreme Court was denied November 9, 2016, S237327.