Marriage of Larson CA3

── Marriage of Larson CA3 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: June 05, 2026 Category: General Filed 6/5/26 Marriage of Larson CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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) In re the Marriage of GARY and DESERIE LARSON. C102722 GARY LARSON, (Super. Ct. No. 17FL03242) Respondent, v. DESERIE LARSON, Appellant. Gary and Deserie Larson1 have three children. As part of their marital dissolution proceeding, the family court ordered that Gary have temporary legal custody of the children, and it denied Deserie’s requests to set aside prior orders. Deserie now contends (1) the family court failed to make required findings, (2) the challenged custody orders violated due process, (3) the family court relied on a biased and inaccurate report, (4) declining to interview one of the children denied the child his right to be heard, and (5) the family court’s March 27, 2024 order is void. 1 Because the parties share the same last name, we will refer to individuals by first name for clarity. 1  Because Deserie has not established error or abuse of discretion, we will affirm the family court’s orders. BACKGROUND Gary and Deserie originally stipulated to joint legal and physical custody of their three children, S., Z., and G., and to a specified parenting schedule. They agreed to complete at least 12 sessions of individual counseling, participate in drug and alcohol evaluation, and that the two oldest children, S. and Z., would participate in individual or conjoint counseling. They also stipulated to have Dr. Sidney Nelson make child custody recommendations, pursuant to Evidence Code section 730,2 based on the health, safety, welfare, and best interests of the children. The family court adopted the stipulation on July 17, 2017. Dr. Nelson recommended that Gary and Deserie have joint legal custody of the children, that the existing parenting schedule be maintained, and that Gary and Deserie complete a parenting support program or equivalent co-parenting counseling program. The family court adopted Dr. Nelson’s recommendations in August 2020, with modifications pertaining to vacation and holiday time. In March 2022, Deserie requested a Family Code section 3111 evaluation.3 Gary agreed to the evaluation, but Deserie later withdrew her request, and the family 2 Evidence Code section 730 provides in pertinent part: “When it appears to the court, at any time before or during the trial of an action, that expert evidence is or may be required by the court or by any party to the action, the court on its own motion or on motion of any party may appoint one or more experts to investigate, to render a report as may be ordered by the court, and to testify as an expert at the trial of the action relative to the fact or matter as to which the expert evidence is or may be required.” 3 Undesignated statutory references are to the Family Code. In a contested proceeding involving child custody or visitation rights, section 3111 gives the family court discretion to appoint a child custody evaluator to conduct a child custody evaluation in cases where the court determines it is in the best interests of the child. Section 3011 sets forth the factors a family court must consider in determining the best interests of the child. 2 cour