M.B. v. Childs CA1/5

Filed 8/21/24 M.B. v. Childs CA1/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

M.B., Plaintiff and Respondent, A169418 v. RAJAY CHILDS, (Alameda County Super. Ct. No. HF23146288) Defendant and Appellant.

Rajay Childs (appellant) and M.B. (respondent) are parents of a child who lives with appellant in California. Respondent lives in Georgia with his fiancée and returns to California to visit the child. In August 2023, respondent filed a request for a domestic violence restraining order (DVRO) against appellant. A trial on the request was conducted in October. Respondent’s fiancée testified that, on July 11, appellant followed her and respondent in her car after leaving a custody hearing. Appellant drove up to them and “scream[ed], you’re going to die, your bitch is going to die. You’re gonna die.” The fiancée also testified that, during an encounter in August, appellant sped down the wrong side of the road in her vehicle and yelled at her and respondent, “[y]ou guys are gonna die.” Appellant followed them, driving erratically and almost hitting another person. Respondent’s fiancée further testified that, also in August, appellant

1

sent her a message through Instagram, threatening that appellant would “bury” her next to her deceased father.1 Respondent testified that his fiancée’s testimony was true and he also testified to additional harassment by appellant. Appellant denied the accounts of the July and August incidents and testified she never threatened respondent. The trial court found appellant had committed abuse within the meaning of the Family Code. Specifically, the court found “that [appellant] has engaged in threats towards [respondent] and members of [respondent’s] household . . . in person and through social media.” The court issued a DVRO for a period of five years, including respondent’s fiancée and her child as protected parties. Under the Domestic Violence Prevention Act (DVPA) (Fam. Code, § 6200 et seq.),2 a “trial court may issue an order ‘to restrain any person for the purpose of preventing a recurrence of domestic violence and ensuring a period of separation of the persons involved’ upon ‘reasonable proof of a past act or acts of abuse.’ (§ 6300.)” (Nevarez v. Tonna (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 774, 782 (Nevarez).) “The DVPA’s definition of abuse includes, among other things, ‘[t]o engage in any behavior that has been or could be enjoined pursuant to Section 6320[,]’ (§ 6203, subd. (a)(4)), and specifies that the definition of abuse ‘is not limited to the actual infliction of physical injury or assault.’ (§ 6203, subd. (b).) Behavior that may be enjoined pursuant to section 6320 includes ‘stalking, threatening . . ., harassing, telephoning, . . ., contacting, either directly or indirectly, by mail or otherwise, coming within a