A California appellate court has upheld an order requiring Humberto Velasco to pay attorney’s fees to Stephanie Vasquez, the mother of his child. This decision comes from a family court dispute over custody and attorney fees related to discovery motions. The ruling highlights the court's stance on compliance with legal procedures and the financial responsibilities stemming from family law cases.

The case, Velasco v. Vasquez (B343856), began when Velasco filed a petition in September 2020 to determine custody of their then-four-year-old daughter. The family court initially granted Vasquez’s motion to quash service of the summons, citing lack of jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act. This was because Vasquez and the child had been living in Arizona for over six months prior to Velasco’s petition. Despite this, the court denied Vasquez’s request for attorney’s fees at that time.

In July 2023, the appellate court reversed the earlier denial of attorney’s fees and sent the case back to the family court for further consideration. On remand, Vasquez decided to dismiss her request for fees, believing Velasco would not be able to pay. However, the situation escalated when Vasquez filed two motions to compel discovery responses in March 2024, seeking attorney’s fees for those efforts.

Velasco, representing himself, did not appear at the May 2024 hearing on these motions, leading the family court to grant Vasquez’s requests and award her $9,744 in attorney’s fees. Velasco later sought to modify this fee award, claiming he could not afford to pay and that he had complied with Vasquez’s requests to the best of his ability.

During the January 2025 hearing, Velasco testified about his financial struggles, but the family court denied his request to modify the attorney’s fee award. The court noted that Velasco had ample time to establish a payment plan and emphasized that the fees were a consequence of his noncompliance with discovery requests. The court ordered Velasco to pay the fees within 30 days, after which interest would accrue at a rate of 10 percent.

In its ruling, the court stated, “The judgment or order of the lower court is presumed correct. All intendments and presumptions are indulged to support it on matters as to which the record is silent, and error must be affirmatively shown.” This principle underscores the court's commitment to upholding lower court decisions unless clear evidence of error is presented.

Velasco appealed the decision, arguing that the family court had erred in granting Vasquez’s request for attorney’s fees and that it had not provided sufficient justification for modifying its previous rulings. However, the appellate court found that Velasco had forfeited these arguments by not supporting them with legal authority or raising them in the family court.

The court concluded that Velasco’s financial situation did not provide a valid basis for modifying the attorney’s fees award. The ruling emphasized that the family court acted within its discretion in imposing fees as a sanction for Velasco’s discovery abuses, which are governed by the Civil Discovery Act.

This ruling is significant as it reinforces the importance of compliance with court orders and the financial responsibilities that come with family law disputes. It also highlights the court's authority to impose sanctions for noncompliance, which can include substantial attorney’s fees.

Looking ahead, this ruling may have implications for similar family law cases where one party seeks to modify financial obligations based on claims of inability to pay. The court's decision sets a precedent that emphasizes the need for parties to comply with court orders and the consequences of failing to do so.

As for the future of this case, Velasco may still have the option to appeal to a higher court, but details regarding any potential further legal action were not available in the court filing. For now, the appellate court's affirmation stands, and Vasquez is entitled to seek her costs on appeal.