F.S. v. H.B. CA3
Filed 11/19/24 F.S. v. H.B. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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) ----
F.S., C099974
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 23DV02357)
v.
H.B.,
Defendant and Appellant.
On September 26, 2023, the trial court issued a one-year domestic violence restraining order protecting plaintiff F.S. and I.S. (who is F.S.’s adult daughter) from defendant H.B. The order expired by its own terms on September 26, 2024. On appeal, H.B. asks us to reconsider the restraining order. Because the order is no longer in effect, we will dismiss the appeal as moot. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND While not entirely clear from the record, as far as we can discern, S.R. and H.B. used to be in a romantic relationship and have three children together. F.S. is S.R.’s
1
mother, and grandmother to H.B.’s three children. H.B. lived at F.S.’s home from July to December 2022. There was some sort of abusive incident between the two on December 20, 2022. On July 14, 2023, in Sacramento County case No. 22DV03659 (which is not at issue in this appeal), the trial court issued a one-year domestic violence restraining order protecting H.B. and her children from S.R. On September 11, 2023, in Sacramento County case No. 23DV02474 (which is also not at issue in this appeal), the trial court held a hearing and declined to issue a domestic violence restraining order protecting I.S. from H.B. because the two did not have the required relationship. (Fam. Code, §§ 6300, 6301, 6211.)1 In August 2023, in Sacramento County case No. 23DV02357 (case No. 2357), F.S. filed for a domestic violence restraining order against H.B. (§ 6200 et seq.) The record does not contain a copy of the initial request or any response. On September 26, 2023, the trial court held a hearing and issued a domestic violence restraining order protecting F.S. and I.S. from H.B. that expired on September 26, 2024. During the hearing, the court heard testimony from H.B. and F.S. The court found F.S. and H.B. were members of a household, because H.B. was the mother of F.S.’s three grandchildren. In addition, H.B. lived at F.S.’s home from July to December 2022. The court further found by a preponderance of the evidence that an incident that occurred on December 20, 2022, was abuse as defined by the Family Code and Domestic Violence Prevention Act. (§§ 6200 et seq., 6203.) The record does not contain a reporter’s transcript of this hearing.
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)