This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Modification: Fischer v. Fischer

Ruling by

James A. Richman

Lower Court

San Mateo County Superior Court

Lower Court Judge

Rachel E. Holt

Family court did not abuse its discretion in denying protective order authorized under Domestic Violence Prevention Act, which gives broad discretion to courts even when the abuse is evidenced.





Court

California Courts of Appeal 1DCA/2

Cite as

2018 DJDAR 4430

Published

May 14, 2018

Filing Date

May 10, 2018

Opinion Type

Modification

Disposition Type

Affirmed


DAVID FISCHER,

Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.

JOANNIE FISCHER,

Defendant and Respondent.

 

No. A148482

(San Mateo County

Super. Ct. No. FAM0127015 )

California Courts of Appeal

First Appellate District

Division Two

Filed May 10, 2018

ORDER MODIFYING OPINION

AND DENYING MOTION;

NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT

 

Trial Judge: Hon. Rachel Holt

 

Counsel:

 

Walzer Melcher, Christopher C. Melcher, Edward M. Lyman for Plaintiff and Appellant.

 

California Appellate Law Group, Robert A. Roth, Ben Feuer for Defendant and Respondent.

 

BY THE COURT:

The opinion filed herein on March 23, 2018 is modified as follows:

The first paragraph on page two is modified to read: "David and Joannie were married in 1999.1 They had two boys, now 16 and 12, and lived on Walsh Road in Atherton (the Walsh Road house)."

The first sentence of footnote five on page five is modified to read: "As indicated by her answer quoted above, to help David out Joannie had been taking care of their children extra days so David could travel more easily for work."

This modification does not effect a change in the judgment.

David's motion for use of anonymous names is denied.

 

Dated: Acting P.J.

 

1. As is frequently the case in disputes between spouses, and for consistency with the briefing, we refer to the parties by their first names.

#271268

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email Jeremy_Ellis@dailyjournal.com for prices.
Direct dial: 213-229-5424