Jane J. v. Superior Court
Annotate this CasePetitioner Jane J. (Mother) and real party Christopher J. (Father) were the parents of two boys, an older son, born in the fall of 2002, and a younger boy, born in January 2006. The couple separated in 2006 and divorced in October 2009. At the time of the divorce, Mother lived in Wisconsin, with the two children. Father was an active duty pilot in the military, stationed in Hawaii. Mother and Father agreed to a marital settlement, which was approved by a Wisconsin family court commissioner. The parents agreed to joint legal custody, but because of the family's "unique" situation, Mother was given 92 percent primary physical custody, with Father having 8 percent physical custody. In 2012, Mother and the children moved from Wisconsin to Orange County, where Mother was living with her fiance. The Wisconsin court held a hearing and approved Mother's move-away. Father returned to the United States and received transfer orders to Fort Rucker in Alabama. Newly remarried, he relocated there in December 2013. In January 2014, Father registered the October 2009 Wisconsin custody order in California. In April 2014, he filed a request for order (RFO) to modify the 2009 Wisconsin custody order, either to increase visitation, or to give him primary physical custody over the boys. He also sought to modify the support amounts. Mother opposed Father's RFO. She highlighted her "serious disagreements" with him concerning the children's future medical treatment and exact custody schedule, but asserted that she "[did] not have an issue working with [Father] regarding child custody and visitation." At the conclusion of the subsequent hearing, the respondent court expressed its doubts about Mother's willingness to facilitate Father's visitation with the children. The court determined that the 2009 Wisconsin custody order "wasn't a final order[] in any event." As a result, the court concluded that Father did not have to establish changed circumstances. The court granted the Father's request, acknowledging that its order would require the children to immediately change school in the middle of the school year. The court declined Mother counsel's request to defer the timing of any order until the end of the school year, and directed that its order take effect in four days, by February 16, 2015. The court made no orders regarding Mother's visitation rights other than a visitation over the children's second spring break in April 2015, with Father to pay for the children's visitation expenses "for this occasion only." The court stayed immediate removal of the children from California to Alabama; Mother then filed a timely petition for writ of mandate and a request for an immediate stay of respondent court's move-away order. After review, the Court of Appeal concluded that because "petitioner's entitlement to the relief requested is so obvious that no purpose could be served by plenary consideration of the issue," and issued a peremptory writ of mandate in the first instance. "Prompt disposition under the accelerated Palma procedure will enable respondent court to exercise its reasoned discretion to fashion appropriate visitation and custody orders under correct legal principles, and considering all the pertinent factors."
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.