Jump To

Top Caption Combined Opinion

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 18, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Donart v. Bland CA2/6

California Court of Appeal

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: B340877

• Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

• Opinion

• Authorities (5)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (0)

• PDF

Combined Opinion

Filed 3/18/26 Donart v. Bland CA2/6
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions
not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion
has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

KEVIN DONART, 2d Civ. No. B340877
(Super. Ct. No. D370102)
Respondent, (Ventura County)

v.

LAURA BLAND,

Appellant.

Kevin Donart (Father) and Laura Bland (Mother) are
the parents of a now-13-year-old son, born in December 2012.
The trial court’s August 1, 2024 order grants sole legal and
physical custody of the child to Father with limited, supervised
visitation to Mother. Additionally, the order prohibits any form
of contact between the child and his maternal grandparents.
Mother appeals, contending the trial court abused its discretion.
We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
This matter comes to us on an extremely limited
record. This is, in this instance, fatal to the appeal. (See, infra, at
p. 6.) For example, the trial court’s custody and visitation order
appears to have been based, at least in part, on the
recommendation of a mental health professional, Dr. Brian
Adams. The clerk’s transcript includes an “Agreement re:
Custody and Visitation” dated February 8, 2023 that is signed by
the parties and Dr. Adams. It does not include a written report
or declaration from him. Although Dr. Adams appears to have
testified at the hearing, his testimony is not included in the
reporter’s transcript. In fact, the record includes a reporter’s
transcript of only two days of a multi-day hearing. Mother’s
motion to augment the record adds a transcript of the afternoon
session of another hearing day, February 21, 2024. While it
appears both parties testified at the hearing, the record we have
been provided includes only a portion of their testimony.
The trial court’s August 1, 2024 Ruling on Submitted
Matter summarizes the testimony of Dr. Adams, the visitation
monitor, Kelly Unger, parenting plan coordinator, Marcie Kraft,
and the parties. Based on this testimony, the trial court
identified several concerns relating to the custody of, and
visitation with child. The parents did not communicate well on
these issues. Mother made parenting choices for the child that
were not age appropriate. She bought him toys and wanted him
to watch television programs that were intended for toddlers even
though he was 11 or 12 years old at the time. Mother often took
the child shopping and brought him a toy or other gift at almost
every visit.

2
The child had extreme difficulty transitioning from
visits back to Father’s custody. He would tantrum, sometimes
hitting, kicking and biting Father. The child also had tantrums
when his maternal grandparents were present. For example, he
refused to get out of Mother’s car at the end of one visit. The trial
court noted that Mother did not encourage the child to go back to
Father or impose any consequences for his behavior. Instead, she
held the car door open and recorded the entire tantrum with her
phone.
Mother had primary physical custody before
December 2022. During that time, the child attended school only
sporadically because Mother would keep him at home, citing
health concerns. After Father was awarded sole custody,
however, the child attended school every day, completed his
homework and began performing at grade level.
The trial court found that it was in the child’s best
interest to continue the custody and visitation schedule that had
been in place since December 2022. The child told Dr. Adams
that he preferred to stay in Father’s home. He had greater
consistency there and was performing much better in school. The
trial court concluded, “There would be no benefit to [the child] in
disrupting his routine at this time.”
The trial court’s order granted Father sole legal and
physical custody of the child. Mother was granted two hours of
supervised visitation and two 20-minute telephone calls with him
per week. The child is to have no contact with his maternal
grandparents. “This includes in-person contact, contact through
electronic means or written letters, and they shall not send gifts
of any kind” to him.

3
The order requires the visitation monitor to
determine the date, time and location of visits between Mother
and child. Visits are not to occur “in places such as the mall or
other public places where supervision and control of the child is
difficult. There shall not be any visits to retail stores such as
Walmart or Party City, etc. There SHALL NOT be any visits in
the home of any party to the case or any other home including the
maternal grandparents. . . . There SHALL NOT be multiple
locations in one visit, and the mother may not change the location
of the visit. If the mother is not able to meet at the time, date,
and location of the visit, there shall not be a visit that week.”
Mother is forbidden to bring any gifts to the visits. She may
bring one gift for the child’s birthday and one gift for Christmas.
The gifts are to be age appropriate. In the absence of an
emergency, Mother is not to make phone calls during the visits.
The order requires the child to continue in
counseling. It also requires Mother to “undergo a full
developmental assessment to determine where the deficits are in
her ability to understand simple instructions, her complete
inability to parent her child, and the very large gap in her
emotional age compared to her chronological age. Of import in
the assessment is the mother’s emotional age currently, her level
of functioning in the world compared to her chronological age, her
ability to process information and follow simple instructions
regarding rules and boundaries, her continued lying about things
that everyone clearly sees she is lying about and her inability to
understand how that affects the consequences in her life, her
ability to problem solve and learn from her past behavior and
make better decisions the next time, the apparent complete
inability to manage her own life, and to make a plan on how to

4
deal with the deficits. The report shall be filed with the court
under seal, for only the court and the mediator to see.”
This portion of the order is a continuation of
provisions included in the February 2023 Agreement re: Custody
and Visitation and a December 2023 Recommendation, both
apparently drafted by the child custody recommending counselor,
Dr. Adams. The record does not include a developmental
assessment that complies with the order or prior
recommendations. However, in December 2022, Mother obtained
an assessment from the Los Angeles County Department of
Mental Health which concluded that she, “does not meet the
diagnostic criteria for a mental health diagnosis.” The record
also includes a report of a neuropsychological consultation
performed in March 2023 that found no “underlying psychiatric
or neurological condition.”
Contentions
Mother contends the trial court abused its discretion
when it found that awarding Father sole physical and legal
custody was in the best interests of the child. She further
contends the trial court abused its discretion when it ordered the
maternal grandparents to have no contact with the child.
Standard of Review
The trial court in a child custody matter has “the
widest discretion to choose a parenting plan that is in the best
interest of the child . . . .” (Fam. Code, § 3040, subd. (e).) We
review a custody and visitation order under the “deferential
abuse of discretion test. [Citation.] The precise measure is
whether the trial court could have reasonably concluded that the
order in question advanced the ‘best interest’ of the child. We are
required to uphold the ruling if it is correct on any basis,

5
regardless of whether such basis was actually invoked.” (In re
Marriage of Burgess (1996) 13 Cal.4th 25, 32; see also Montenegro
v. Diaz (2001) 26 Cal.4th 249, 255.)
“‘It is well settled, of course, that a party challenging
a judgment [or order] has the burden of showing reversible error
by an adequate record.’ [Citation.]” (Elena S. v. Kroutik (2016)
247 Cal.App.4th 570, 574.) The trial court’s order is presumed to
be correct. “‘“‘“All intendments and presumptions are indulged to
support [the trial court’s order] on matters as to which the record
is silent, and error must be affirmatively shown.”’”’” (In re
Marriage of Obrecht (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 1, 8.) Where, as
here, the record does not include a complete reporter’s transcript,
“‘We must . . . presume that what occurred at that hearing
supports the judgment.’” (Id. at p. 9, quoting Hearn v. Howard
(2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1193, 1201.)
Discussion
Mother has not met her burden of demonstrating an
abuse of discretion on an adequate record. The partial record
before us contains evidence supporting the trial court’s order.
There is evidence that the child experienced severe tantrums
after visits with Mother and his maternal grandparents that
subsided when he was in Father’s custody. His school attendance
and homework improved under Father’s supervision. He told the
recommending counselor, Dr. Adams, that he wants the custody
and visitation schedule to remain the same. This evidence
supports the trial court’s finding that its order advanced the
child’s best interest.
In addition, we are required to presume the trial
court acted properly. Thus, we presume that testimony and
argument not included in the partial reporter’s transcript would

6
also support the trial court’s order. Mother has not shown an
abuse of discretion.
Conclusion
The August 1, 2024 Order re Custody and Visitation
is affirmed. Father shall recover his costs on appeal.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

YEGAN, Acting P. J.

We concur:

BALTODANO, J.

CODY, J.

7
Amy Van Sickle, Judge

Superior Court County of Ventura

Rodriguez Law Group and Patricia Rodriguez; Wood
Law Group and Nathaniel Wood, for Appellant.
The Dadvocates and Samera Habib, for Respondent.