Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Natasha and Navin Hemrajani married on July 2, 2016, separated in October 2021, and have one daughter, identified in the opinion as M, who was born in December 2016. On December 9, 2022, the parties stipulated to joint legal and physical custody, and the family court entered a dissolution judgment on January 30, 2023. From at least April 2023, M spent approximately 57 percent of her time with Natasha and 43 percent with Navin. On September 28, 2023, Natasha filed a request for permission to move with M from Los Angeles to Palm Springs, citing her upbringing, family support network, and lower living costs there. Navin opposed the request, arguing that M should remain in her established school and community and that her primary residence should be with him if Natasha moved.
After a three-day evidentiary hearing in December 2024 and January 2025, the family court issued a January 13, 2025 statement of decision granting the request. It found Natasha highly credible and identified several credibility problems in Navin's testimony. Applying the nonexhaustive factors from In re Marriage of LaMusga, the court found that stability and continuity, M's age, her relationships with her parents, and the parents' relative cooperation favored relocation. It treated distance, M's wishes, and Natasha's reasons for moving as neutral, while finding that the request was made in good faith. The court concluded that relocation served M's best interests and established a detailed custody schedule. Navin timely appealed, challenging both the admission of M's statements and the family court's weighing of the relocation factors.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal reviewed the custody order for abuse of discretion, the factual findings for substantial evidence, and legal conclusions independently. It emphasized that the order was presumed correct and that it would not reweigh evidence or reassess witness credibility. Because the parents shared joint physical custody, the governing question was whether modifying custody served M's best interests, assessed through the LaMusga factors and the case's particular circumstances.
Navin challenged Natasha's testimony that she heard M tell him, "You use the F word on me," along with related statements asking him to tell Natasha that he had done so. The appellate court held that the statements were not hearsay when offered as circumstantial evidence that M believed her father spoke negatively to her and was bothered by that belief; their value for that purpose did not depend on whether he actually used the word. The court added that to the extent the family court relied on M's statement for the truth of the matter asserted, the family court erred, but any such error was harmless. Other findings concerning Natasha's longstanding caregiving, her attention to M's medical, educational, and social needs, and the relative credibility of the parents independently supported the conclusion that M had a deeper bond with Natasha.
The court also rejected Navin's challenges to the distance and age factors. Distance was reasonably treated as neutral because M had regularly traveled between the two cities for years and would continue traveling at least twice monthly regardless of the custody decision. The family court also expressly recognized that reduced time with Navin would be difficult for M and acknowledged that he was an excellent father. Navin's argument that M was too young to sustain a long-distance relationship with him asked the appellate court to reweigh evidence, which LaMusga forbids. Finding proper consideration of all the factors, the Court of Appeal affirmed the order and awarded Natasha her costs on appeal.
Key Takeaways
- A child's out-of-court statement may be nonhearsay when the fact that it was made circumstantially demonstrates the child's state of mind rather than proving the truth of its contents.
- Even if a family court also uses such a statement for an impermissible hearsay purpose, reversal requires a showing that the error was reasonably probable to affect the outcome.
- In a joint-custody relocation case, the distance factor may be neutral when the child already travels regularly between the communities and will continue doing so under either custody outcome.
- A family court may favor relocation based on a young child's likely adaptation while still expressly recognizing the difficulty of reduced contact with the nonmoving parent.
- Appellate review does not permit reweighing conflicting custody evidence or substituting the appellate court's assessment for the family court's discretionary LaMusga analysis.
Why It Matters
The decision applies established California move-away principles to a record in which the family court made detailed credibility and caregiving findings. It distinguishes permissible circumstantial use of a child's statements from use for their truth, while explaining why any improper use did not undermine the custody determination. The opinion also illustrates how existing travel patterns can affect the distance analysis and how express acknowledgment of the nonmoving parent's relationship can answer a claim that the court minimized separation.
The judgment leaves the family court's relocation order and detailed custody schedule in place and awards appellate costs to Natasha. The opinion identifies no remaining issue for further trial-court proceedings and is designated not for publication in the official reports.