Johnston-Rossi v. Rossi

Johnston-Rossi v. Rossi (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 1081

Holding

The Court of Appeal reversed a postjudgment order modifying the parenting plan to require teenage children to participate with their father in a Family Bridges therapy program that included a 90-day-minimum no-contact-with-mother portion, and granted the father sole custody for the duration of the program. The trial court abused its discretion in two respects:

1. No best-interests support in the record. Nothing in the record supported the trial court’s finding that the significant disruption to the children’s established living arrangement was in their best interest.
2. Improper denial of evidentiary hearing. The second judge handling the matter abused his discretion by denying the mother’s request for an evidentiary hearing, based on his incorrect assumption that the first judge had already ordered the children to participate in Family Bridges. The first judge had merely permitted enrollment in “a week-long program such as Family Bridges” — not the longer no-contact intervention that the second judge ultimately ordered.

Relevance to this matter

Direct authority for skepticism of any court-ordered reunification-therapy program that imposes extended no-contact periods between a child and a parent — particularly programs that operate on a 90-day-no-contact-with-the-targeted-parent model. If opposing counsel ever proposes a Family Bridges-style intervention separating the children from Charley, Johnston-Rossi is controlling counter-authority on (a) the evidentiary support required, and (b) the right to a full evidentiary hearing before any such order issues.

Pair with FC §3011 - Best Interests of the Child (the children’s safety / welfare anchor) and FC §3020 - Public Policy on Custody (frequent and continuing contact). Also useful as procedural authority for insisting on an evidentiary hearing on any contested custody modification.

The Phase 3 plan grouped this case with the Xspouse-memo-cited authorities; that grouping was inaccurate (the Xspouse memo does not cite Johnston-Rossi). The case earns its place in the vault through its substantive relevance to high-conflict custody dynamics and reunification-therapy controversies, not through any Xspouse / support-side connection.