Smith v. Villafana CA2/4

INTRODUCTION

The parties are before us for a second time. In the prior case, we affirmed an order awarding Earl Smith (Father) sole legal and physical custody of their minor daughter (the child), and granting Rebekah Villafaña (Mother) monitored visitation rights every Friday and Sunday mornings. (See E.S. v. R.V. (May 16, 2011, B223635) [unpub. opn.].) Subsequently, Mother filed a request to modify the order. Arguing that Father had frustrated her visitation rights, Mother sought a full reversal of the order. Following an evidentiary hearing, the trial court issued an order maintaining Father’s status as the sole legal and primary physical custodian, but modifying the visitation procedures to address Mother’s concerns. Mother contends the trial court erred in continuing monitored visits. Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On February 16, 2010, the trial court (Commissioner Patricia M. Ito) issued an order awarding Father sole legal and physical custody of the child. Mother was granted visitation rights every Friday and Sunday, from 9:00 a.m. until 1:00 p.m. Each of Mother’s visits was required to be monitored by “a professional…