Vincent Matthew Trevino v. Susana Cristina Cruz
Case No: 1413891
Hearing Date: Tue Apr 03, 2018 10:30

Nature of Proceedings: Motion Modify Visitation

To Establish Parental Relationship – Petitioner Father’s Motion to Modify Visitation

Attorneys:

Martin Mendoza is counsel for father “limited scope – this issue only;”

Andrew Mitchell represents Respondent Mother.

Rulings:

This case was originally set for 3/27/18 and counsel for father, unaccountably, filed a “Notice” continuing the matter from 3/27 to 4/11/18; there is no case or statutory authority permitting a unilateral notice continuing a hearing to be filed; thus the Court “worked up” and published its tentative decision before the 3/27 hearing; only mother appeared with her lawyer at the hearing; the Court elected to continue the hearing to 4/3 and is publishing the same tentative decision below.

1. Father’s request for unsupervised visitation to begin is GRANTED.

2. Father shall have such visitation Saturday and Sunday from 12 noon to 5 PM alternating weekends.

3. Pick up and drop off exchanges with the minor child shall be curbside outside of mother’s house. There need to be no communication between the parties.

Analysis:

Filed 2/27/18; Father seeks to modify the order of 1/29/13 ordering supervised visitation to father; he seeks an order that father will pick up and drop off minor child curbside outside of mother’s house; alternatively, father can exchange child with mother’s mother a block away to ensure that the current restraining order re father is honored by him.

Father filed a declaration and reports it has now been almost five years since the Court ordered supervised visitation with his daughter; he saw daughter with a professional supervisor for three years until the supervisor moved away; there were no problems of note in those three years; approximately 33 written reports from the supervisor prove this; not a single report where it is stated that he used profanity in front of daughter, or reported that he ever lost his temper in any fashion with daughter; when Ms. Ayer moved away, he then asked mother for unsupervised visitation, just one or two afternoons a week, but because several months had gone by, mother’s attorney demanded that he undergo reunification counseling in order to even consider unsupervised visitation, which he did with daughter also in attendance; after approximately a year and a half of this the therapist had to move; counseling went well; therapist has now recommended unsupervised visitation.

He again asked mother for unsupervised visitation, one to two afternoons a week to which she offered one afternoon a week supervised; daughter is not afraid; any reported violations of the restraining order were inadvertent; will be completely off probation in May, 2018; has steady and regular employment at Home Depot in Goleta for almost five years; he voluntarily agreed to the restraining order being extended primarily to placate mother; also her attorney made it clear that if he refused, he would take him to court; because mother will not allow it, he is asking for the Court to allow his daughter regular visitation with her father.

Mother’s Response

It comprises 91 pages; includes Exhibits A through H; the Court has read it all; the Court only can summarize: mother requests that visitations remain supervised between father and Natalia until he and Natalia can resume reunification therapy since so much time has lapsed, and, until it is deemed appropriate that the supervision requirement be eliminated; she is not opposed to Natalia having reasonable visitation with father; simply cannot agree to unsupervised visitations at this time; it is not in Natalia’s best interest now to allow father to have visitations without supervision; father chooses to be absent from Natalia’s life for several months at a time, violates the orders during Fiesta each year (which Natalia witnesses causing her worry and concern), and then decides to come back and request orders that are only convenient for him, but not in Natalia’s best interest.

Mother reports the orders during Fiesta are very simple and the possibility of there being an “inadvertent” encounter is not likely; the fact that father can’t follow simple orders is of concern; father could have maintained contact with Natalia by resuming reunification therapy with another therapist when sessions with Ms. Orpen stopped, or, by having supervised visitations while working towards reinitiating contact; however, he chose not to and instead decided to be absent for several months; had either of these things happened, we likely would not be where we are today; it has now almost been 14 months since father had contact with Natalia; he claims that he is not a stranger to Natalia; however, his actions indicate otherwise; due to the Criminal Order in place, which does not expire until April, 2023, and father’s conduct over the years, she cannot agree to him picking up and dropping off Natalia at the curbside or a block away from their residence during exchanges or to have any communication with him with respect to visitations; she requests that exchanges occur at a neutral location and that visitations be arranged through third party as the Criminal Order does not allow for such communication.

Court’s Conclusions

The Court has read it all; it is time for unsupervised visitation to begin; father has paid his dues; he also should be permitted to pick up and drop off minor child at curbside outside of mother’s house; the Court elects not to have mother’s mother involved in the exchanges.