W
—_
I—O
N
‘
FILED
Supu-ior
Com
of
Cuufumia
Counw
of
Los
Angelo:
Michael
Lockwood
J
3
2020
23679
Calabasas
Road
#203
UL
2
Calabasas,
California
91302
Sherri
R.
Carter.
Executive
Officer/Clcrk
(323)
702-7087
phone
By
,
Deputy
MichaelLockwoodGDmacom
Charlene
Andrewsin
pro
per,
SUPERIOR
COURT
OF
THE
STATE
OF
CALIFORNIA
FOR
THE
COUNTY
OF
LOS
ANGELES
CENTRAL
DISTRICT
DEPARTMENT
35
IN
THE
MATTER
OF:
Case
No.
BD642436
PETITIONER:LISA
MARIE
PRESLEY
RESPONDENT’S
TRIAL
BRIEF
and
Date:
August
3,
2020
Time:
8:30
A.M.
RESPONDENT:
MICHAEL
LOCKWOOD
Location:
Department35Hon.DianaGould—Saltman
FILED
UNDER
SEAL
To:
The
Court
1n
theabove-entntled
matter
and
to
Llsa
Marie
Presley,
Petltloner:
I.
STATISTICAL
FACTS
Date
of
marriage:
January
22,
2006
Dateof
separation:
June
24,
2016
Length
of
Marriage:
IO
years,
5
months
Children:
Finley
and
Harper
(twin
girls),
both
born
October
7
,
2008,
age
l1
Current
custodial
schedule:
Respondent,
Tuesday
and
Wednesday
3-7PM;Sunday
l-
7PM.
All
other
times
with
Petitioner.
II.
BRIEF
SUMMARY
OF
THE
CASE
DCFS
opened
an
investigation
into
sexual
abuse
allegations
against
Mother
and
Father
after
Petitioner
filed
for
dissolution
on
June
24,
2016.
Both
children
were
interviewed
on
July
l,
2016.
The
children
were
placed
with
their
Grandmother.
DCFS
filed
a
WIC
300
petition
on
July
7,
2016.
Both
parents
were
allowed
monitored
visits
until
June
28,
2017
when
JudgeDraper
issued
a
MinuteOrder
which
gave
the
parents
equal
l
Respondent’s
Trial
Brief
Marriage
of
Presley
and
Lockwood
BD642436
\
H
i-‘O
0
l
ngazo‘mhwm
IQIQ
Ix)
w
24
custodial
time
(each
with
2
'/z
days
at
a
time)
unmonitored
for
both
parents,
although
Father’s
overnights
at
the
home
of
Maternal
Grandmother
(with
her
consent).
Mother
entered
a
rehabilitation
facility
for
90
days
on
July
15,
2016.
DCFS
moved
to
dismiss
the
petition
in
its
entirety
in
May
20
l
7
and
the
court
granted
the
motion
on
June
28,
20
l
7.
The
courtissued
a
written
Statement
of
Decision
on
July
l9,
2017.
Minors’
Counsel
and
Mother
appealed
the
dismissal
of
allegations
against
Respondent
on
July28,
2017.
The
Court
of
Appeal
issued
awrit
of
Supersedeas
on
July
6,
2017
which
stayed
the
Dependency
Court
Order
dismissing
charges
against
Father
pending
appeal.
This
resulted
in
the
continuation
of
monitored
visits
for
Father
and
less
custodial
time
for
Father
than
Mother
(only
21
hours
per
week
for
Father
with
no
ovemights).
The
Court
of
Appeals
affirmed
Judge
Draper’s
dismissal
of
charges
against
Father
on
August
27,
2018
and
Remittitur
was
issued
on
October
29,
2018,
and
this
would
have
permitted
Father’s
overnight
visits.
However,on
October
10,
2018,
Mother
filedan
RFO
seeking
physical
custody
and
monitored
visits
for
Father.
DCFS
opened
another
investigation
into
the
dismissed
allegationsagainst
Respondent
on
November
27,
201
8.
Consequently,Father
had
to
have
monitored
visits
again.
On
or
about
December
l9,
2018,
Respondent’s
legal
counsel
withdrewfrom
representing
Respondent
because
Respondent
could
no
longer
afford
to
pay
him.
Respondent
has
appeared
in
propria
personae
since
then.
0n
March
27,
2019,
DCFS
closed
its
investigationas
inconclusive
of
the
November
201
8
abuse
report.
In
April
20
l
9,
VikkiHakkinen,
who
served
as
a
volunteer
monitor
for
Father’s
visits
with
the
children
free
of
charge,
quit
due
to
Mother’s
excessive
criticism
and
interference
(by
this
time
Hakkinen
had
taken
professional
monitor
training
and
became
a
professional
monitor).
Thus,
from
mid—April
through
June20]
9,
Father
had
no
visits
with
the
children
because
hecould
not
afford
to
pay
a
monitor.
Hakkinen
returned
as
monitor
in
June
20
l9.
Respondent
sought
a
continuanceofthc
trial
becausehe
lacked
essential
evidence
and
counsel
via
exparte
motion
in
Department
35
on
June
30,
2020,
and
ex
parte
relief
was
denied
without
a
stated
reason
for
denial.
Respondent
filed
a
Request
for
Order
for
Petitionerto
pay
Respondent’s
legal
costs
and
fees
so
that
Respondent
may
be
represented
2
Respondent's
Trial
Brief
Marriage
of
Presley
and
Lockwood
BD642436
H
\
by
counsel
at
trial
on
July
2,
2020
and
the
RFO
is
due
to
be
heard
in
Department
83
on
October
6,
2020.
Due
to
the
pending
motion,
Respondent
again
sought
a
continuance
of
the
trial
via
ex
parte
motion
in
Department
2
on
July
7,
2020.
The
motion
was
denied
without
a
stated
reason
for
denial.
III.
SETTLED
ISSUES:
No
Jurisdictionissues
as
California
is
deemed
the
“home
state.”
IV.
ISSUES
TO
BE
LITIGATED
AT
TRIAL
Physical/legal
custody
and
child
support,
decree
of
dissolution.
V.
PROPOSAL
FOR
RESOLUTION
OF
ISSUES:
Joint
physical
and
legal
custody
pursuant
to
Family
Code
Sections
3002
and
3003.
Compliance
with
most
of
the
recommendations
of
court
appointed
evaluators,
Dr.
Mary
Lund
and
Dr.
Meesha
Ellis
(“Lund
Report”).
However,Respondent
proposes
50%
physical
and
legal
custody
and
50%
physical
and
legal
custody
to
Petitioner
(one
week
on,
one
week
off),
both
parties
unmonitored,
however
with
a
transition
phase
similar
tothat
recommended
by
theevaluators
but
at
a
more
acceleratedpace.
Respondent
agrees
with
theevaluators
that
it
is
probably
in
the
best
interests
of
the
children
forthere
to
be
transition
phases
until
full
50%
custody
is
reached,
but
Respondent
asserts
that
Respondent
should
have
a
greater
time
share
than
the
21
hours
currently
allotted
to
him
by
court
order
in
phase
one.
Due
to
the
current
Covid-l9
precautions,
it
is
apparent
that
the
children’s
school
will
not
be
requiringphysical
attendance
in
the
fall,
thus
the
children
could
do
their
home
schoolingwith
Respondent,
which
would
be
in
accordwith
Dr.
Lund’sfindings
as
to
Respondent’s
helpfulness
with
the
children's
schoolwork.
As
a
result,
Respondent
proposes
three
eight
hour
days
(the
six
hour
school
day
plus
an
hour
before
and
after
school)
and
one
eight
hour
visit
on
the
weekend,
unmonitored,
and
at
Respondent’s
home,
drop
off
at
Petitioner’s
home
(Petitioner
shall
drop
offthc
children
at
Respondent’s
home).
This
totals
32
hours
per
week,
which
is
incrementally
larger
than
Respondent’s
current
allotted
time.
This
also
gives
Respondent
greater
time
to
address
school
issues
with
the
girls
(the
evaluators
noted
that
thechildren
are
behind
in
school).
3
Respondent’s
Trial
Brief
Marriage
of
Presley
and
Lockwood
80642436