Tentative Ruling

Judge Thomas Anderle
Department 3 SB-Anacapa
1100 Anacapa Street P.O. Box 21107 Santa Barbara, CA 93121-1107

FAMILY LAW
Nathalie Contro Castro and Pedro Castro
Case No: 1267269
Hearing Date: Tue Nov 05, 2019 10:30

Nature of Proceedings: Req. for Order: Modification Child Custody/Visit

Req. for Order: Modification Child Custody/Visit

Petitioner Nathalie Contro Castro [“mother”] is in pro per

Respondent Pedro Castro [“father”] is in pro per

Rulings:

1. Although father seeks additional child support, the Court did not find he filed an Income and Expense declaration which is absolutely required. Mother did not file one either. The Court will refer father to DCSS.

2. Father shall continue to have sole physical custody.

3. Father’s request that the Court make an order that puts mother’s time-share on hold is moot in light of mother’s agreement that the girls will have a right of refusal for visitations.

4. Apparently the girls are to be in therapy. If they are not in therapy, father shall so arrange. The Court allows mother and father to participate when and if the therapist deems it appropriate.

5. The Court will not “clarify Orders that the children are not to be warehoused and live with their father.” He has sole physical custody and that particular issue will remain within his discretion as included as a decision he can make in this case because the Court finds it is within the definition of sole physical custody parameters.

6. Father’s requests to (a) allow Carlota to get a job and Eva to babysit; and (b) to allow Carlota to drive until 11pm; and to (c) change age-appropriate supervision to nighttime are considered moot as they all fall within his sole authority to make those decisions as they are within the definition of sole physical custody parameters.

7. Father’s request to grant him sole legal custody is denied. The Court does not see how it would be productive.

Background

The case commenced in 2008; it has seen considerable courtroom time; the Court addressed the matter very extensively in 4/2017; the two children are Carlota DOB 12/4/2002 [almost 17] and Eva DOB 2/24/2005 [14]; it was back before the Court in 4/2019 when the Court again considered issues in this contentious and sometimes acrimonious case.

Father’s ex parte request of 10/21/19

The current issues come to the courtroom because of an ex parte hearing request filed by father; unaccountably, it was 60 pages long including Exhibits A through L [includes pages of text messages]; the Court has read it all; father wants to change the orders made on 4/17/2017 [albeit the last orders were just made in 4/2019] although none had to deal with child support.

Father testifies that he has physical custody of the minor children. Very little visitation is occurring. Mother is now working as a supervisor at an intake facility. She makes more income than the amount used in consideration of child support in 04/2017. He said the minor children (ages 16 and 14) do not feel safe with their mother and they do not want to see her. The older child had a medical emergency following the most recent visitation with Mother. Father files the ex parte application to ask for the following emergency orders: (1) No visitation by Mother pending further order of the Court, and (2) an order shortening time so that the Court may hear this matter more thoroughly in the near future.

He is asking for the following orders:

A. Sole physical custody to remain with father.

B. Joint legal custody to change from joint to sole with father.

C. Time-share to Petitioner Nathalie Contro Castro to be put on hold until the Court finds a way to ensure our daughters’ safety during those times.

D. To reevaluate child support to Respondent based on Petitioner’s change of circumstances.

E. Allow Carlota to get a job and Eva to babysit.

F. Allow Carlota to drive until 11pm.

G. To change age-appropriate supervision to nighttime.

In his ex parte declaration father testified that the orders established by the Court on April 21, 2017, regarding time share with mother was “The Court cannot find any reasonable basis for the children to feel unsafe with mother provided safeguards related to alcohol are in place and the time constraints for mother’s visitations is limited.”

Father testifies about one event on Saturday, October 12th of 2019; mother picked up Carlota and Eva at 12:00pm at his house in Agoura Hills as per court order. At 3:21pm he received a phone call from Carlota. She was frantic, crying and he could barely understand what she was saying, He ended up taking her to the ER where she was

Father testifies currently that mother has unsupervised time-share every other weekend, on Saturday from noon to 5pm, and every Wednesday from 6pm to 8pm per Court order. They have both agreed to move Wednesday’s time-share to Thursdays at the same time to accommodate Carlota and Eva’s track practices. He testifies that he is aware that he is in violation of Court order, but feels the safety of Carlota and Eva is at stake and that their safety takes priority above all else; father has been forced by circumstance to make the incredibly difficult choice to violate a Court order for the sake of his daughters’ well-being; precisely due to the urgency of this matter that he wishes to expedite the process by which the Court will review the evidence presented. Based on the event that took place on Saturday, October 12, 2019, resulting in the need for medical attention for Carlota, father and Carlota and Eva don’t feel safe about mother having time-share with them at this time; father is concerned because even though he made mother aware of this, she is still showing up for her time-share at his home in Agoura Hills, demanding that Carlota and Eva see her, regardless of their personal fears and lack of safety.

Order made on the Ex parte request

After the ex parte hearing this Court filed after an ex parte hearing order and said the case came on for an ex parte hearing set by Respondent Pedro Castro [“father”] on October 23, 2019.

1. Time for a hearing is shortened;

2. The moving papers are the ex parte papers and. are filed already;

3. The Response from Respondent [“mother”] is already filed; she may file an additional response if she elects but it must be filed by October 28, 2019;

4. Any Reply to be filed by father must be done by noon Thursday October 31, 2019;

5. The hearing on the matter his November 5, 2019, at 10:30 am

Mother’s Responses

The first was filed 10/22

It is 14 pages long; have read it all; summarize here; she does not consent to the orders requested; consents to the following order:

1. Mother to continue per court order parental time as 6PM to 8 PM on Wednesdays, and continue every other Saturday 12 PM-5PM.

2. That in the meantime the Court revisit shared physical custody for Carlota and Eva due to the fact that Carlota and Eva have been warehoused in a house outside the home Pedro shares with his current wife and two other children. Pedro Castro has been in contempt of court, having not allowed visitation with Mother last week, as well as on 4/24/19. There have been violation of court orders reports made at the Lost Hills Sheriff Station.

Mother testifies that father has utilized an event that occurred on October 12th during her Parental time in an attempt to distance the children from their family and mother. Since the hearing on April 23, 2019, where Custody orders remained in effect, and this Court denied, father and girls’ right of refusal for the girls to not visit with mother on the basis of feeling uncomfortable, father has violated the court order and refused visitation on several occasions. On 4/ 24/19, father did not enforce mother’s parental time with Carlota; he was also in violation of the present parental time order on October 17, 2019, at 6 PM when he refused to let mother; as mother to Carlota and Eva, she is concerned for their welfare; father will go to great lengths to alienate the children from her to cover up his living arrangement.

Mother testifies that she petitions the Court to modify the Court’s current orders to grant mother expanded custodial time with the children; to find father in contempt of court due not following court orders and denying her parental time; asks the Court to clarify the court order to father regarding having the girls live with him full time vs, being warehoused in a separate building; is urgent that the girl’s living arrangement be clarified, and that father be aware of possible charges for violating this Court order.

The second was filed 10/28/19

This one is 40 pages long; will summarize here;

1. Mother agrees to allow the girls a right of refusal for visitations. There has been an extensive time and interference with visitation. Mother realizes that the girls feeling forced to see their mother has not been productive or promoted healing.

2. Mother has requested the girls to be in therapy which they have recently began and hopes that the Court consider therapy with mother to support and encourage healing and bonding.

3. Mother requests that the Court clarify Orders that the children are not to be warehoused and live with their father.

4. Mother agrees children should be in therapy and that the Court allow mother and father to participate when therapist deems appropriate.

Mother testifies that she acts with heart; she realizes [in retrospect] that it was a mistake to surprise the girls with meeting up with their cousins without informing them first; she no way expected this reaction. Mother, her sister Monique Navarro and their adult cousins are wishing to discuss with the Court and clarify their strong desire and hopes to see Carlota and Eva; they wish to clarify their concern and life long relationship they have had; that mother acted in a desire to promote healing and bonding by taking the girls to visit their cousins; that continued attempts of father to defame mother and family and characterizing and misrepresenting and sharing details of court proceeding with the children, as well as keeping secret that he is warehousing girls has contributed to a rift in the family.

Attaches as Exhibit A; includes a letter from Monique Contro Navarro dated 10/2019; a letter from Sophia Navarro; a letter from Diego; a letter from Monique Navarro; a letter from Antonio Navarro.

Exhibit B; a translated letter from Raquel; Exhibit C; emails; Exhibit D; telephone timeline; Exhibit E; text messages and photographs; Exhibit F; photograph screen shot.

Declaration of Monique Contro-Navarro in support of Mother’s Response

It comprises 20 pages; have read it all. She attaches many photographs.

Father’s Reply

The Court’s Conclusions

Now have read about 150 pages of declarations on this one case; the issues are clear and the rulings that the Court should make are clear. See above.