Guzman v. Hammond CA1/3

Filed 4/4/25 Guzman v. Hammond CA1/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE

ANEL GUZMAN, Plaintiff and Respondent, A171589 v. TYRON HAMMOND, (Lake County Super. Ct. No. FL216760) Defendant and Appellant.

Tyron Hammond appeals from an order renewing Anel Guzman’s domestic violence restraining order (DVRO) against him and denying his request to modify the custody and visitation order regarding their children. Hammond avers the court abused its discretion in extending the DVRO, failed to adequately explain its reasoning as to the custody and visitation order, and violated his rights under the Confrontation Clause. We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In August 2021, the court granted Guzman a three-year DVRO against Hammond that included an order for child custody and visitation. Hammond and Guzman each requested modification of the custody and visitation order. After holding hearings, the court issued an amended DVRO in November 2023, set to expire in August 2024, which contained the custody and visitation order at issue in this appeal.

1

The November 2023 order provided for Hammond to have visitation with the children twice per month without a third-party supervisor present. In an apparent oversight, the order did not contain verbal orders made by the court at a February 2023 hearing at which both parties were present. Those February 2023 orders required the parties to communicate through Talking Parents or My Family Wizard (third party co-parenting services), prohibited Hammond from having his children around one of his sisters, and required the children not to be left with anyone under the age of 18 when in Hammond’s care. Before its expiration, Guzman filed a request to renew the DVRO. She also filed a request to modify the custody and visitation order to terminate or require supervision for Hammond’s visitation with the children. Hammond opposed the DVRO renewal request and filed a competing request to modify the custody and visitation order, seeking joint custody and overnight visits. On August 23, 2024, the court held a hearing on the DVRO renewal request and the requests to modify the custody and visitation order. Guzman sought permanent renewal of the DVRO, asserting she had been psychologically, emotionally, and verbally abused by Hammond and feared future abuse. She argued Hammond had violated the DVRO on numerous occasions over the prior three years, primarily by contacting and harassing her. As to visitation and custody, Guzman asserted Hammond violated the prohibition on having the children around his sister. She further contended Hammond harassed their 12-year-old daughter by repeatedly asking her questions about Guzman’s personal life and insulted Guzman in front of their daughter. Guzman requested a temporary no-visitation order as their 12-year old did not wish to see Hammond, though she wanted for Hammond to be able to see the children in the near future.