Opinion
E067475
11-05-2018
In re the Marriage of A.G. AND M.G. A.G., Respondent, v. M.G., Appellant.
M.G., in pro. per., for Appellant. Law Offices of Gephart & Silverman, Claudia Silverman; and A.G., in pro. per., for Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super.Ct.No. SICVFL 15-58839) OPINION APPEAL from the Superior Court of Inyo County. Brian J. Lamb, Judge. Dismissed. M.G., in pro. per., for Appellant. Law Offices of Gephart & Silverman, Claudia Silverman; and A.G., in pro. per., for Respondent.
I. INTRODUCTION
Respondent, A.G., filed a petition to dissolve her marriage to appellant, M.G., in December 2015. The court entered a status only judgment of dissolution in June 2016, and in December 2016, a judgment on reserved issues. The judgment granted A.G. sole legal and physical custody of the parties' two daughters and ordered no visitation for M.G. M.G. appealed, contending the court erred in denying him joint custody and visitation.
II. FACTS AND PROCEDURE
At the time of trial in September 2016, the parties' daughters were three and seven years old. A.G. had been afraid of M.G. since their separation in 2013. He said if she divorced him, "that would be the end." He threatened to flee the country with their oldest daughter and said she "would never find him." He also threatened to shoot A.G.'s sister and brother-in-law and then shoot himself. These threats caused her to seek and obtain a temporary restraining order and file for dissolution in 2013. She ultimately dismissed the earlier dissolution proceeding and went back to M.G. because he repeatedly threatened to take his own life. Her father had committed suicide in 2012, and she did not want her daughters to suffer the pain she had experienced when losing her father. Although she had doubts about doing so, she did, in fact, go back to him.
M.G. verbally abused her during the marriage. He called her profane epithets at least once a week. "Nothing was ever good enough for" him. He criticized her job, her pay, and her parenting skills. He did not want her to be on social media or socialize with friends. He once followed her and her friends to dinner and then a bar, and the bar staff had to remove him from the premises.
M.G. also became physically violent with her. In 2013, he slammed her into the wall and put her in a choke hold to prevent her from leaving their home. In 2015, he became furious with her after she went to a gathering at her coworker's house. She and her coworkers had dinner and made a staff Christmas gift basket. She received a call from M.G. just as she was returning home and parking the car. He asked if she "was going to stay out and party all night." When she got inside, he yelled at her and accused her of being unfaithful to him. He declared that she must be engaging in sexual acts with her female coworker, who had posted a photograph with A.G. on social media. As A.G. was trying to walk out of the bedroom, he threw his drink at her, spit on her, and threw her on the bed. A.G. rolled onto the floor and ran downstairs, where she called 911. She was in fear for her life. M.G. owned at least six guns, and she heard much banging and stumbling around upstairs.
The police arrested M.G. that night, and A.G. filed the instant petition for dissolution the next day. He called her numerous times from jail the night he was arrested, and he continued to call during all hours of the night over the next several weeks. She filed an application for a domestic violence restraining order in December 2015, and the court immediately granted her a temporary restraining order that was in effect until the court issued a three-year restraining order in February 2016.
M.G. denied throwing his drink at A.G. or otherwise physically harming her. He said that she was the aggressor that night and threw the drink at him, then struck him in the face multiple times.
The restraining order permitted M.G. to visit their daughters until A.G. applied for a no visitation order after several incidents. The first occurred at the Bishop Police Department, where the parties exchanged the children for their visits with M.G., when the temporary restraining order was in effect. He refused to return their youngest daughter, who was two years old at the time, because he insisted that she wanted to stay with him. A.G. was trying to get their daughter and her car seat out of his car when he stood behind her and said: "'She doesn't want to go with you. [M.], tell your mom you don't want to go with her.'" The child began hysterically crying and threw a tantrum, saying she wanted to stay with him. M.G. started recording the incident on his cell phone and said: "'She's scared of you. You beat her.'" A.G. eventually got the child and her car seat out of his car. M.G. told her that as soon as he moved his things out of her apartment, she "was done for," and "he was going to burn the place down." A.G. went into the police department to report the incident, and he followed her inside screaming and yelling. An officer had to remove him from the building.
The second incident occurred approximately one month later, when the three-year restraining order was in effect. A.G. received a text message from M.G.'s friend expressing concern because M.G. had said some "scary things" to the friend. The next morning, during a phone conversation, M.G. warned A.G.: "'You better say a really good good-bye to your daughters because you're not ever going to see them again.'" A.G. took this to mean that he was going to take the children away because he had threatened to do that many times before. He had recently told her their daughters would be better off living with his mother in Arizona. After these incidents, the court granted A.G.'s request for an emergency protective order denying M.G. visitation pending trial.
During the time when the temporary restraining order was in effect, someone had vandalized A.G.'s car at a court appearance. M.G. was at court that day too; his father appeared about 10 to 15 minutes after he did. A.G.'s vehicle would not start after the court appearance. The mechanic said a bag of sugar had been dumped into her gas tank. A.G. could not think of anyone besides M.G. and his father who would do that to her car.
M.G. had coached their oldest daughter to write a note stating: "'My mom slaps me in the face when she gets mad.'" He included it in one of his court filings. A.G. saw it and talked to their daughter about how A.G. disciplines her. The little girl acknowledged that she gets sent to bed or to her room, but said A.G. has never slapped her. This led to a conversation about the note. The child explained that M.G. said he was giving her a spelling quiz and told her what to write. He told the child he was going to throw the paper away and not show anyone.
A.G. proposed that the court order supervised visitation for M.G. She had lined up an agency that was willing and able to provide supervision. When the court asked how frequently M.G. would be available if the court ordered visits supervised by the agency, M.G. said that he wanted to visit the children as much as the court would allow. At the same time, he had just started a new job in Las Vegas, Nevada and "would most certainly be extinguished from [his] position" if he were to see them as much as he wanted. He had been having difficulties finding and keeping a job and was about $3,000 behind in child support payments. He felt it would be financially burdensome to return for supervised visits on the weekends and thought it would be more reasonable for him to have the children during the summer and on holidays.
At the end of the one-day trial, the court took the matter under submission. It later entered a judgment awarding A.G. sole legal and physical custody of the parties' daughters and ordering no visitation for M.G. The judgment stated: "[M.G.] has demonstrated by his conduct on multiple occasions since the filing of this dissolution action that he cannot consistently conform his conduct to the reasonable requirements of any court order providing for his exchange of and visitation with his children. As a consequence, his conduct exposes his ex-spouse and children to unjustifiable risk of harm. [M.G.] has not proved to the court that his arranging for visitation with professional supervision, Family Code section 3100, is feasible in the present situation. For these reasons, until circumstances materially change, a 'no visitation' order is in the best interests of the children."
III. REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL
After we issued our tentative opinion and M.G. requested oral argument, he asked us to dismiss his appeal. Appellants are not entitled to dismiss their appeal as a matter of right. California Rules of Court, rule 8.244(c)(2) provides that upon receiving a request to dismiss, "the court may" grant the request and direct immediate issuance of the remittitur. (Italics added; see, e.g., Arden Group, Inc. v. Burk (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 1409, 1411, fn. 1 [refusing to dismiss case scheduled for oral argument, noting parties had provided no explanation for allowing the court to "wast[e] our limited resources" on the appeal].) Though it is unfortunate that we have received the unexplained request for dismissal after we have tentatively completed our review of the case, in the interests of avoiding further expenditure of resources, we will exercise our discretion to grant M.G.'s request.
IV. DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
FIELDS
J. We concur: MILLER
Acting P. J. CODRINGTON
J.