County of Santa Barbara v. Saul Linares/Pauline Tuazon Other Parent
Case No: 1381190
Hearing Date: Tue Dec 17, 2019 10:30

Nature of Proceedings: Req. for Order: Modification Visit

Req. for Order: Modification Visit

Attorneys:

Lynn E. Goebel for Respondent (“father”)

Moving party (“mother”) is in pro per

Ruling: The matter must be continued to allow mother a chance to file her Reply; it is due 12/23; the hearing is continued to 12/29/2019 at 10:30am.

Analysis:

Mother’s RFO

On 11/26/19 mother filed a RFO seeking a modification in visitation; set the matter for 12/17; the matter is related to the minor child Yzabelle (sometimes “Daughter” or “Belle”) DOB 2/1/11; the present order was filed in 1/2019; mother sets out a lengthy declaration; have read it all but will summarize here; current court order stipulation specifies that father and mother share legal and physical custody of Yzabelle; in exercising joint legal custody, they share in the responsibility and must consult in good faith on matters concerning the health education and well- being of the child. In the stipulation, it states that when selecting a doctor, dentist, optometrist, or other healthcare professionals, and when deciding on medication(s) or course of treatment for the child (except in emergencies), they shall exercise joint legal custody.

On October 25, 2019, she filed an Order to Show Cause for Contempt and the resulting hearing was set for November 19, 2019; during the hearing, she was provided her with the option to either move forward and clearly identify the precise counts of contempt she had described concerning father, or dismiss the case and file a Request for Order regarding the two main issues she has presented.

The first issue is in regards to the primary physician for Daughter; she is requesting that Daughter have only one physician, and one in which they as legal parents can equally access and request to view her medical records; she would also like to request that Daughter have a Female Physician rather than a Male Physician as Daughter will begin experiencing changes in her body and mother thinks she will feel more comfortable around a female doctor; Yzabelle has been seeing Dr. Margot Roseman since she was born; if father prefers that Dr. Brewer be Daughter’s primary physician, then she would like to request an open discussion in which they can decide on a physician they both approve.

Mother would also like to discuss Daughter’s Medical and Dental Insurance; she would like father to provide full Medical/Dental 1nsurance for Daughter, as well as share in the responsibility of paying all of her co-pays for her Medical or Dental appointments.

The second request she makes is for Daughter to be able to attend all of her special functions, regardless of which parent she is with during the function; special functions would include dance recitals and competitions, sports award ceremonies, school field trips, etc.; events are for her and she should automatically be able to attend them whether she is with mother or with father; mother understands that prior plans may have been made by the custodial party, therefore, she believes it should be stipulated that if the custodial parent is not available to take her to the function, then the other parent can take her to the event.

Mother points out that in the stipulation, it is the responsibility of each parent to notify the other within twenty four hours of receiving any invitation, schedule, or information of a special function for the child, especially those that occur during the other parent’s time. This allows the custodial parent the opportunity to make proper arrangements for the child’s special function (i.e. award ceremony, parent/teacher conference, performance, sports competition, etc.); in order to eliminate any ambiguity regarding decisions related to Daughter’s special functions, she is requesting that the Court consider her addition to the stipulation for the sake of Daughter and all of the hard work and dedication she puts into her various involvements and activities. She is an incredible young lady who has managed to maintain her grades while balancing her extracurricular activities and mother wants her to know that she will always have their support, especially for the things she loves to do.

Father’s Declaration was emailed to the Court on 12/13; he reports:

As for the choice of medical provider, there was a period of time during this case when mother and he shared joint legal custody of Belle; but he was given the right to make the medical decisions regarding her; it clearly sets forth in the Order filed November 17, 2015, “… however the father shall be primarily in charge of making health care decisions as to providers” (Order, page 2, line 11, no. 4); mother knew this, she was present when the order was made, and she even knew Dr. Brewer was Belle’s primary medical provider when she signed Dr. Brewer’s office authorization to speak with Dr. Roseman’s office; he, too, would like an open discussion about Belle’s health care provider(s) rather than mother continuing to file frivolous requests in this case; whether mother felt nervous and comfortable when she was Belle’s age is not the point: the best interests of Daughter, her health, safety and well-being are paramount; at no time has Belle expressed to father any discomfort with Dr. Brewer; father wishes that mother would make a more concerted effort to co-parent with him; this Court is the wrong Court for mother to address medical and dental insurance costs; issue is better brought before Commissioner Foley with the Department of Child Support Services present to address any modifications to the Order(s) made in that Court.

As for special functions (i/e/ Belle’s dance class), he has made it abundantly clear with mother that he does not agree with mother scheduling dance events and/or classes for Belle during his custodial times; specifically, these dance classes were classes to which he expressly did not agree to enroll Belle in; although he did previously agree that Belle finish out her previous dance class(es), which directly interfered with his custodial time, he told mother going forward that she was not to do so; yet she still did.

Mother’s Reply

None filed because father’s response was late. Mother is entitled to a Reply. Thus the case has to be continued to permit that document to be filed.