DISCUSSION

Father argues that the family law court abused its discretion by not determining if relocating to Texas was in R.’s best interests or in the interests of public policy. (Fam. Code, § 3011.) He asserts that Mother is relocating to deprive him of a relationship with R. and is motivated by her jealousy of his former partner. In applying the best interest of the child analysis in a relocation or “move-away” case, the family law court considers the child’s interest in stability and continuity in the custodial arrangement; the distance of the move; the age of the child; the child’s relationship with each parent; the relationship between the parents, including their ability to communicate and cooperate, their willingness to place the child’s interest above their own; the reasons for the move; and the extent to which the parents presently share custody. (In re Marriage of LaMusga (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1072, 1101.) The standard of review of custody and visitation orders is the deferential abuse of discretion standard. (In re Marriage of

3 Burgess (1996) 13 Cal.4th 25, 32.) “The precise measure is whether the trial court could have reasonably concluded that the order in question advanced the ‘best interest’ of the child.” (Ibid.) On appeal, the reviewing court has no power to judge the credibility of witnesses or to reweigh the evidence. (Gamboa v. Northeast Community Clinic (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 158, 166.) We view all factual matters most favorably to the prevailing party and do not substitute our factual determinations for those of the trial court. (Id. at pp. 166-167.) We presume that the court found Father’s evidence lacking effective weight and credibility. (Id. at p. 166.) The family law court reasonably concluded that the custody and visitation order reasonably advanced the best interest of R. Mother testified that Father had infrequently visited R. Father admitted that he had visited R. only twice within the prior seven or eight months. Mother intended to move to Texas in part to actively share legal and physical custody of her two older children. She testified that she planned to work remotely as a transaction coordinator and live in a home purchased by R.’s maternal grandmother. R. was two years old at the time of the custody hearing. The family law court did not abuse its discretion in approving the relocation request and the custody and visitation recommendation.

4

DISPOSITION

The order is affirmed. Father is to bear costs on appeal.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

GILBERT, P. J.

We concur:

YEGAN, J.

TANGEMAN, J.

5 JoAnn Johnson, Judge

Superior Court County of Ventura

______________________________

Sergio Castaneda for Plaintiff and Appellant. No appearance for Defendant and Respondent.

6