Lopez v. Lopez CA4/1

Filed 6/13/25 Lopez v. Lopez CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

VANESSA VERGARA LOPEZ, D084431

Appellant,

v. (Super. Ct. No. 22FL010460C)

KYLE KALOKAHIMAIKALANIMAI LOPEZ, SR.,

Respondent.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Lizbet Muñoz, Judge. Affirmed. Vanessa Vergara Lopez, in pro. per., for Appellant. No appearance by Respondent. Vanessa Vergara Lopez challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the domestic violence restraining order entered against her protecting her former spouse Kyle Kalokahimaikalanimai Lopez, Sr. and their two minor children. Resolving this matter by memorandum opinion (see generally People v. Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847), we affirm.

I. Following an unreported evidentiary hearing, the court granted Kyle’s request for a DVRO protecting him and the couple’s minor children from Vanessa for two years. At the hearing, both Vanessa and Kyle testified, and Kyle introduced copies of Vanessa’s communications as exhibits. In its minute order, the court found Kyle’s testimony credible but “d[id] not find [Vanessa] credible.” The court noted Vanessa “showed up at one of the child[ren]’s graduation when she was previously ordered to not . . . have any visitation with the children.” Vanessa also “continues to pull them out of class and is a disruption.” In addition, Vanessa “has shown up unannounced at [Kyle’s] home” and “is initiating group texts with the family.” The court found Vanessa’s actions were “damaging to [Kyle’s] peace” and “there is a disturbance of [Kyle’s] calm.” As a result, and because Kyle “met his burden of proof beyond a preponderance of [the] evidence,” the court found a permanent restraining order necessary. II. We briefly outline the relevant law for DVROs before explaining why the incomplete appellate record compels us to affirm. A. The Domestic Violence Protection Act seeks to prevent acts of domestic violence and to separate the persons involved for a period sufficient to resolve the underlying causes. (Fam. Code, §§ 6200, 6220.) It defines domestic violence as “abuse” perpetrated against certain individuals, including a former spouse or a party’s children. (§ 6211.) As relevant here, “abuse” includes disturbing the peace of the other party. (§§ 6203, subd. (a)(4); 6320, subd. (a).) Disturbing the peace of the other party “refers to conduct that,