Page 1
C.A. Reverses Order Requiring Children to Have No Contact With Mother for 90 Days
By a MetNews Staff Writer
The Court of Appeal for this district yesterday reversed an order that two teenagers be enrolled in a program that requires that they be taken from the custody of their mother for 90 days and be barred from any contact with her.
“Without evidence that it is in the best interest of the children to remove them from mother’s custody for a period of at least 90 days in order to participate in the Family Bridges program, the court abused its discretion in issuing its order of December 22, 2021,” Justice Elizabeth A. Grimes of Div. Eight said in an unpublished opinion.
The order was made by Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Steven A. Ellis who denied a hearing to the mother, and granted the father’s petition that the enrollment be allowed, with its no-contact proviso. He apparently proceeded on the notion that Judge Dianna Gould-Saltman, who previously handled the case, had already given her approval.
What Gould-Saltman had ordered, however, was that the children be enrolled in “a week-long program such as Family Bridges or Turning Point” and that the father could enroll them in the program in Los Angeles, where he resides, as an alternative to enrolling them in New York, where the mother lives.
The theory behind such programs is that a relationship with an alienated parent can best be mended by barring contact with the custodial parent.
Grimes wrote: “Nothing in the record supports the court’s finding that this significant disruption to the children’s established living arrangement with mother was in their best interest. The order requires the children, for a minimum period of three months, to be moved out of their home and either moved across the country to Los Angeles if the Family Bridges program can be completed during a school break, or moved into a new home in New York with father until the program can be completed there during the school year. The children would not be allowed any contact with mother during this disruptive period.
“The order was based on the incorrect assumption that Judge Gould-Saltman had already ordered the children to participate in the Family Bridges program. Judge Gould- Saltman’s order did not direct the children to participate in Family Bridges, or in any other program that might last more than one week.”
The case is Johnston-Rossi v. Rossi, B318522.
Family law attorneys Michael J. Kretzmer of Summers Levine & Kretzmer and Stefanie Hall teamed Robert A. Olson, Cynthia Tobisman, Eleanor S. Ruth, and Tina Kuang of the appellate law firm of Greines, Martin, Stein & Richland in representing the mother, Kerry Ann Johnston-Rossi. David M. Arbogast, Ovando Bowen, and Chumahan B. Bowen acted for the father, Paul Rossi.
Copyright 2023, Metropolitan News Company