N.Z. v. D.M. CA3

Filed 6/5/25 N.Z. v. D.M. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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) ----

N.Z.,

Plaintiff and Respondent, C099317

v. (Super. Ct. No. 19FL05234)

D.M.,

Defendant and Appellant.

N.Z. (mother) filed a request to renew a domestic violence restraining order against D.M. (father). At the conclusion of an evidentiary hearing, the trial court orally announced its decision to renew the restraining order. It subsequently filed a written order. Father now contends the trial court abused its discretion by making inconsistent factual findings. Because the record does not support the contention, we will affirm the trial court’s order.

1

BACKGROUND Father and mother were in a romantic relationship until December 2019. On February 28, 2020, the trial court issued a three-year domestic violence restraining order prohibiting father from, among other things, harassing and surveilling mother. Two months before the expiration of the initial restraining order, mother filed a request to renew the restraining order under Family Code section 6345. Father objected to the renewal request. The trial court held an evidentiary hearing on June 8 and 9, 2023. As relevant to the contention on appeal, father admitted that Global Positioning System (GPS) devices were routinely installed on cars from his used-car dealership, that mother had been loaned a Toyota Camry from his dealership, and that the Camry had a GPS device installed. However, he denied accessing the Camry’s GPS information. At the conclusion of the evidentiary hearing, the trial court orally announced its decision. Among other things, it noted the evidence that father knew all the cars at his dealership had GPS devices installed and that mother had received a loaner car from the dealership. It further noted that the restraining order directed that mother was not to be surveilled. The trial court said it was not making a finding as to who was tracking or reviewing the GPS information. But it concluded mother had proven her case by a preponderance of the evidence, and it granted her request to renew the restraining order. The court filed a written order on June 22, 2023. In the written order, the trial court found that father had engaged in surveillance, stalking, harassment, and coercive control, and had disturbed the peace of mother. The written order incorporated the portion of the reporter’s transcript in which the trial court granted mother’s renewal request. DISCUSSION The question presented by a renewal request is whether a reasonable person in the petitioner’s circumstances would fear future abuse if the original order were