..

i,
1
'\._...,. ' 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
''----
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
"/r"'"' ;.
27
28
'-._...
THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
---ooo---
In re the Marriage of:
DAVID M. FERRIS,
Petitioner,
VS CASE NO. 98FL05615
SUSAN C. FERRIS,
ORIGINAL
Respondent.
---ooo---
REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF EX PARTE PROCEEDINGS
Held in the Superior Court, in and for the County of
Sacramento, Department 121, on Wednesday, April 4, 2012;
Before the HONORABLE MATTHEW J. GARY, Judge
For the Petitioner:
For the Respondent:
Reported By:
---ooo---
APPEARANCES
TIMOTHY ZEFF
Attorney at Law
2609 Capitol Avenue
Sacramento, California
LAW OFFICE OF ALLAN R. FRUMKIN
Attorney at Law
5996 Horseshoe Bar Road
Loomis, California 95650
BY: STEVE GIMBLIN,
Attorney at Law
Tara Murany, CSR No. 12892
COUNTY OFFICIAL COURT
Page 1 of 7
1
2
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA
APRIL 4, 2012
3 ---ooo---
4 Proceedings in the Marriage of Ferris, Case
5 No.98FL05615, came on regularly this day before the Honorable
6 MATTHEW J. GARY, Judge of the Superior Court of California,
7 for the County of Sacramento, Department 121, thereof.
8 The Petitioner, DAVID M. FERRIS, was represented by
9 TIMOTHY ZEFF, Attorney at Law.
10 The Respondent, SUSAN C. FERRIS, was represented by
11 STEVE GIMBLIN, Attorney at Law.
12 The following proceedings were then had, to wit:
13 ---ooo---
14 THE COURT: Okay. On the ex parte, on Ferris and
15 Ferris, I'm summarily denying the request for any relief.
16 I'll go ahead and set it for hearing. But the existing
17 custody order is that Mr. Ferris has sole legal, sole
18 physical custody of the child with no contact to mom, and he
19 can send the child to Utah. He can send the child to
20 New York. He can send the child to Asia. It's his sole
21 discretion. So I'll go head and put it on for hearing, but I
22 can't -- I'm not going the address this on an ex parte.
23 MR. ZEFF: Can I ask there's one problem with
24 the moving papers, and that is my address is incorrectly
25 reported in there on one of the documents.
26 THE COURT: Okay.
27 MR. ZEFF: I brought it to the attention of
28 Mr. Frumpkin, but I see it wasn't changed on the -- it's in
COUNTY OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS--------1
Temporary
custody
order
Page 2 of 7
1

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
'-----'
the demographics. My address is 2609 Capitol Avenue. They
got me at 2509. I'm just afraid stuff won't get sent to me.
THE COURT: Okay. We'll note it.
I'm sorry, I didn't realize we have a record. Both
parties are present. Good morning to both. And --
MR. GIMBLIN: Good morning, Your Honor.
Steve Gimblin withAl Frumkin's office
THE COURT: Good morning.
MR. GIMBLIN: for the Respondent. So you're not
entertaining any argument today?
THE COURT: No, it's an e x parte. The only reason
I mentioned it is while b oth side s were here, I would just go
ahead and give you an idea of why I'm summarily denying it,
but I won't entertain argument on it. There's an existing--
her complaint is that the child has been shipped to Utah to a
school. Whether it's true or not is not the issue. Even if
it is true, the existing custody order is tha t he has sole
legal, sole physical custody, and he can do that.
MR. GIMBLIN: Your Honor, it's not really coming
from the mother's perspective, although she is here today.
It's really looking out for the child. The request also
seeks counsel for the child.
THE COURT: Counsel, I'll put all o f that on for a
noticed hearing. I won't do that on an ex parte is the
point. We're going to give you a date, hearing date on it,
and that will probably -- probably be good for you because
you'll be able to review the file. You may be able to review
some transcripts, and you may be able to come up to speed on
COUNTY OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS--------2
Page 3 of 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
what you're actually into.
MR. GIMBLIN: I was aware of the no contact order.
I just think that it is an emergency given the shocking
nature
THE COURT: Yeah, I don't.
MR. GIMBLIN: -- of the transfer.
THE COURT: I don't. And unfortunately between you
and I, it's my judgment that controls. I do not see the
emergency on it given what we've gone through, given the
history of the file.
So I'll put you on. I'll give you a noticed
12 hearing, and you'll be able to come on back, and we'll take
13 argument on the case, on the motion.
14 MR. GIMBLIN: You're going to set the date by
15 minute order, Your Honor?
16 THE COURT: No. You'll actually get it on your OSC
17 today, and then you'll be able to serve the other side, and
18 we'll have you come on back. And hopefully I'll have the
19 moving papers and the replies or responsive dec, and I'll go
20 ahead and consider the thing anew.
21 MR. GIMBLIN: Is there any way we can get it on a
22 shortened notice period?
23 THE COURT: There is, but I wouldn't grant it. I
24 didn't grant an OST on this either. We'll go ahead and set
25 it for a regular noticed hearing.
26 MR. GIMBLIN: Thank you, Your Honor.
27 THE COURT: Thank you all.
28 MR. ZEFF: Do we get to pick a date now?
COUNTY OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS--------3
Page 4 of 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
THE COURT: Madam Clerk is looking in the system
now to get you a date. Thank you.
(Whereupon, proceedings concluded.)
COUNTY OFFICIAL COURT REPORTERS---------4
Page 5 of 7






Cal. Prac. Guide Family L. Ch. 7-G
California Practice Guide: Family Law
Judge William P. Hogoboom (Ret.), Justice Donald B. King (Ret.), Contributing Authors: Judge Kenneth A. Black
(Ret.), Judge Thomas Trent Lewis, Michael Asimow, Bruce E. Cooperman
Chapter 7. Custody And Visitation

G. Removal Of Child From Jurisdiction; Wrongful Taking Or Withholding Of Child
1. Move-Away Contests

a. [7:560] Custodial parents presumptive right to change childs residence: By statute, the parent with sole
physical custody of the children has the presumptive right to change the childrens residencei.e., to move away
with the children; courts will not interfere with that decision (enjoining the relocation or changing custody) unless the
move is detrimental to the child. A parent entitled to custody of a child has a right to change the residence of the
child, subject to the power of the court to restrain a removal that would prejudice the rights or welfare of the child.
[Fam.C. 7501(a); Marriage of Burgess (1996) 13 C4th 25, 32, 51 CR2d 444, 449; see Marriage of LaMusga (2004)
32 C4th 1072, 1094, 12 CR3d 356, 372custodial parents presumptive right to relocate with children not dependent
on whether parents had history of cooperative coparenting]

(1) [7:560a] Limitationinapplicable absent final judicial custody determination: Notwithstanding the
foregoing, a parent does not have a Fam.C. 7501 presumptive right to relocate the children unless he or she
has been awarded custody by way of a final judicial custody determination. [See F.T. v. L.J. (2011) 194
CA4th 1, 1920, 123 CR3d 120, 133134]

Chapter 17. Modification Of Orders And Judgments
C. Child Custody And Visitation
b. [17:297] Limited to modifications after final judicial custody determination: The changed circumstances
rule is triggered only after a final or permanent custody adjudication. The ordinary childs best interest
standard, without the additional changed circumstances burden of proof, applies when the court makes an initial
custody adjudication and when it adjudicates custody following any temporary or interim custody order.
[Montenegro v. Diaz, supra, 26 C4th at 256257, 109 CR2d at 580 & fn. 3; Marriage of Burgess (1996) 13 C4th 25,
29, 37, 51 CR2d 444, 447, 452, fn. 8; see Keith R. v. Super.Ct. (H.R.) (2009) 174 CA4th 1047, 10531054, 96 CR3d
298, 302error to apply changed circumstances standard to child custody move-away request because prior
DVPA interim custody order was not a final judicial custody determination]

Clearly then, the changed circumstances rule does not apply in proceedings to change an informal or de facto custody
arrangement. [Burchard v. Garay (1986) 42 C3d 531, 537538, 229 CR 800, 804]
(2) [17:313] Move-away cases: By statute, a parent with sole physical custody of the children has the
presumptive right to change the childrens residence, subject to the courts power to restrain a removal that would
prejudice the rights or welfare of the children. [Fam.C. 7501(a); Marriage of Burgess, supra, 13 C4th at 32, 51
CR2d at 449; Marriage of LaMusga (2004) 32 C4th 1072, 1094, 12 CR3d 356, 372; but see also F.T. v. L.J. (2011)
194 CA4th 1, 1920, 123 CR3d 120, 133134parent does not have presumptive right to relocate with
Page 6 of 7
children unless awarded custody by way of final judicial custody determination ( 7:321.6)]
(b) [17:314] Changed circumstances rule applies: A noncustodial parent seeking to change the custody
arrangement under an existing order on the basis of the custodial parents pending move-away, bears the burden
of showing there has been a substantial change of circumstances rendering it essential or expedient for the
welfare of the children that there be a custody change. [Marriage of Burgess, supra, 13 C4th at 38, 51 CR2d at
453 (emphasis added)]

Comparemove-aways where no final custody determination exists: When there has yet been no final
custody adjudication, a move-away contest is decided strictly under the childs best interest analysis,
considering all the relevant factors as on any initial custody adjudication. The changed circumstances rule
and its associated burdens of proof do not apply. [Marriage of Burgess, supra, 13 C4th at 3132, 51 CR2d at
449; see Ragghanti v. Reyes (2004) 123 CA4th 989, 996, 20 CR3d 522, 527; F.T. v. L.J., supra, 194 CA4th at 20,
123 CR3d at 134best interests analysis appropriate where stipulated order was without prejudice to either
party; and detailed discussion at 7:561.1 ff.]

Page 7 of 7