Andrea D. Giedraitis is a partner with Summers Levine, LLP. She has practiced family law exclusively since being admitted to the California Bar in 2000. She received her Bachelor of Arts degree in English Literature from California State University, Northridge in 1992 and her Juris Doctor degree from Loyola Law School in 2000.
Ms. Giedraitis handles all aspects of a family law, including high conflict dissolutions involving child custody and support, spousal support, domestic violence, property valuation and division of property, post-dissolution issues/support and custody modifications, judgment enforcement, as well as paternity actions, prenuptial agreements, post-nuptial agreements, guardianships and grandparent visitation matters. Ms. Giedraitis approaches a matter with empathy, dedication, and a focus on the children’s best interests and the family as a whole.
She is a member of the California State Bar Association, Los Angeles County Bar Association, and Beverly Hills Bar Association. Ms. Giedraitis was selected to Southern California Super Lawyers in 2011, 2012, and 2013 and Rising Stars in 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010.
Ms. Giedraitis is fluent in Lithuanian.
Johnston-Rossi v. Rossi (2023) 88 Cal. App. 5th 1081
Our office represented the Mother/Petitioner/Appellant in the appellate matter entitled Johnston-Rossi v. Rossi (2023) 88 Cal. App. 5th 1081. Mother and the parties’ two (2) children resided in New York, and Father/Respondent/Defendant resided in Los Angeles.
Father filed a post-Judgment Request for Order to allow him uninterrupted time with the minor children to complete both a four (4) day in-person Family Bridges reunification program and the “Family Bridges required post aftercare”, a minimum of 90 days which would require no contact between the children and Mother. In support of Father’s request, he argued that his request was supported by an earlier court order. Mother opposed Father’s request to remove the children from her custody for over 90 days. Mother filed a notice, pursuant to Family Code section 217, of her intent to present live testimony at the hearing, including testimony of the two (2) minor children, who were teenagers.
The trial court denied Mother’s request for live testimony, finding that the prior trial court had “already resolved” the substantive issues of the Family Bridges program, and granted Father’s Request for Order, finding it was in the children’s best interests to have no contact with Mother during the Family Bridges program (unless the parties otherwise agreed or by further order of court). Once the Family Bridges program was completed, the minor children would return to Mother’s primary custodial care. Mother appealed the Court’s order.
The Court of Appeal found that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering the children to participate in the 90 day Family Bridges program with Father, finding that nothing in the record supported the court’s finding that this significant disruption in the children’s established living arrangement with Mother was in their best interest. The trial order ordered this modification without any evidence of changed circumstances. Further, the trial court’s order was based on the incorrect assumption that the previous court order provided for the participation in the Family Bridges program. Additionally, in denying Mother’s request for an evidentiary hearing, the court prevented Mother from offering evidence relevant to the propriety of the order that the children participate in a 90 day Family Bridges Program during which they would be deprived of all contact with Mother. The order ordering the children to participate in the Family Bridges program and removed from Mother’s custody for 90 days was reversed, and Mother was awarded costs on appeal.