B.R. v. J.F. CA3

Filed 8/1/24 B.R. v. J.F. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Butte) ----

B.R., C098636

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 22CV02335)

v.

J.F.,

Defendant and Appellant.

B.R. filed a request for a civil harassment restraining order against J.F., the ex- wife of the man B.R. was dating.1 (See Code Civ. Proc, § 527.6.)2 After hearing testimony from both parties, a judicial officer issued a restraining order for a three-year

1 In this opinion, we refer to the parties and other individuals by their initials to protect their privacy interests. No disrespect is intended. 2 Undesignated statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure.

1

period. On appeal, J.F. contends (1) there is insufficient evidence for the restraining order, (2) the restraining order violates her constitutional right to associate with others, and (3) the restraining order is overbroad. We reject the first and third claims as forfeited, and the second claim is unpersuasive. Accordingly, we will affirm the restraining order. BACKGROUND J.F. married S.F. and had two children with him. S.F. also had a child with B.R. In connection with their divorce, J.F. and S.F. stipulated to an August 2022 permanent custody order providing J.F. with sole custody of their children, providing S.F. with visitation rights, and prohibiting any contact between J.F.’s children and B.R. In October 2022, B.R. requested a civil harassment restraining order against J.F., alleging among other things that J.F. stalked her home, threatened to harm her, sent harassing text messages to her, contacted her employer in an attempt to get her fired, submitted a false report about her to a local child welfare agency, and purposefully interfered with ongoing child custody litigation between her and A.F., the father of one of her children (who was subject to a judicial order prohibiting him from driving by her home), by driving by B.R.’s home and then telling A.F. what she saw in order to upset him so that he would “berate” B.R. with questions. A three-day trial began in November 2022 and ended in January 2023. B.R. and J.F. both had counsel, and both testified. S.F. also testified. In its February 2023 ruling, the court determined (1) J.F. had no legitimate reason to contact A.F. and discuss with him matters involving B.R.; (2) J.F. had no legitimate reason for complaining to B.R.’s employer about something that had nothing to do with B.R.’s employment; (3) J.F. had no legitimate reason to send a text message to B.R. threatening that (a) A.F. would obtain custody of the couple’s child and (b) a child welfare agency would take from B.R. the baby that she had with S.F.; and (4) J.F. persuaded B.R.’s neighbor to monitor her home, receiving from the neighbor at least one photograph of S.F.’s vehicle. The court ruled