Moberg v. Moberg CA4/1

Filed 1/28/25 Moberg v. Moberg CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

LISA J. MOBERG, D084357

Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. No. ED97245) OWEN E. MOBERG,

Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Sharon L. Kalemkiarian, Judge. Affirmed. Owen E. Moberg, in pro. per., for Appellant. No appearance for Respondent. Owen Moberg (Husband) challenges the trial court’s decision to grant his ex-wife, Lisa Moberg (Wife), a restraining order against him and denying him one against her. Because the limited record he provides leaves us unable to evaluate his claims, we affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The following summary is taken from the clerk’s transcript and the augmented record.

The parties were married in 2014. In 2015, Wife initiated a divorce, which was final in 2017. They had four children together and reconciled and split up several times after the divorce. According to a Family Court Services (FCS) parenting plan, Wife was convicted of felony child cruelty in 2020. At one point, Wife lost custody of the children due to her third conviction for driving under the influence. FCS recommended that she complete an alcohol prevention course, which she did. Wife also completed a parenting program in 2019 and attended one Alcoholics Anonymous meeting per month. DISCUSSION Husband alleges that the trial court abused its discretion in granting a domestic violence restraining order (DVRO)against him and denying his request for a DVRO against Wife. Specifically, he alleges that the trial court “did not review all the information at hand [and] was also emotionally manipulated by Ms. Moberg’s testimony.” A court’s decision to issue or deny a DVRO is reviewed for abuse of discretion. We affirm the court’s decision unless it is unsupported by substantial evidence. (Herriott v. Herriott (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 212, 223). In this case, we cannot conduct such a review with the record before us, because “appellant’s omission of the reporter’s transcript precludes appellant from raising any evidentiary issues on appeal” including the sufficiency of the evidence to support the court’s decision. (Hodges v. Mark (1996) 49 Cal.App.4th 651, 657.) We do not have access to the testimony or evidence presented at the trial, because Husband has not provided the reporter’s transcript of the testimony by the witnesses during the two day trial, nor does the record include most of the exhibits that were admitted into evidence at trial.