Miller v. Dolmo CA3

── Miller v. Dolmo CA3 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: May 29, 2026 Category: General Filed 5/29/26 Miller v. Dolmo CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) SCOTT AARON MILLER, C103331 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 17FL04019) v. BESS-CAROLINA DOLMO, Defendant and Appellant. Self-represented appellant Bess-Carolina Dolmo (mother) appeals from the family court’s order denying her application to vacate a prefiling order designating her as a vexatious litigant and adopting a child custody recommending counselor’s recommendations. Respondent Scott Aaron Miller (father) did not file a respondent’s brief. We thus decide the appeal on the record, mother’s opening brief, and any oral argument by mother. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.220(a)(2).)1 We affirm the denial of the application and dismiss the custody portion of the appeal. 1 We deny mother’s requests for judicial notice filed on January 9, 2026, and January 30, 2026, because they are unnecessary to our disposition. 1  FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In 2021, the family court designated mother as a vexatious litigant and entered an order prohibiting mother from filing any new self-represented litigation without leave (the prefiling order). The judge who issued the prefiling order later retired and the matter was reassigned to Department 125 for all purposes. After a July 2024 bench trial, the family court ordered mother and father to share legal and physical custody of their children, among other things. In October 2024, mother filed an application for an order to vacate the prefiling order (the application). It is unclear from the record whether the application was made to Department 125 or to the presiding judge’s department. But the memorandum of points and authorities accompanying the application states it would be heard by Department 125. In December 2024, the family court appointed a private child custody recommending counselor (counselor) following father’s ex parte application, set an order to show cause hearing regarding custody in February 2025, and scheduled counselor to return for the order to show cause hearing. At the February 2025 order to show cause hearing, mother objected to the family court’s consideration of counselor’s report on the ground that it was hearsay and that she had the right to cross-examine counselor. Mother also requested a trial on counselor’s report. The family court set a trial in September 2025, limited the trial to new issues arising after the July 2024 trial, and continued the hearing on counselor’s report to allow mother the opportunity to cross-examine counselor and lay foundation for her hearsay objection (the February 2025 order). On March 4, 2025, the family court held a combined hearing for the application and counselor’s report. Judge Weng-Gutierrez, who was assigned to Department 125 at the time, presided over the hearing. She rejected mother’s contention that the application should be heard by the presiding judge, noting the matter was assigned to Department 2 125 for all purposes. Judge Weng-Gutierrez also stated she would adopt counselor’s report as interim orders pending the September 2025 trial. On March 10, 2025, Judge Weng-Gutierrez issued an