S.S. v. J.S. CA2/6

California Court of Appeal Jul 21, 2025 No. B334820Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the appellant's domestic violence restraining order (DVRO) request was fully adjudicated in a 2021 evidentiary hearing, and her failure to appeal that final order precludes appellate review.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in denying the appellant's request for a DVRO and failing to apply the Family Code section 3044 presumption against awarding custody to a parent who has committed domestic violence.
Whether the appellant's failure to appeal the 2021 order denying her DVRO request precludes appellate review of that decision.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“We conclude J.S.’s DVRO was fully adjudicated in November 2021. Her failure to appeal that order precludes our review.”

“An order refusing to issue a DVPA restraining order is appealable. J.S.’s failure to file an appeal from that order precludes appellate review.”

Filed 7/21/25 S.S. v. J.S. CA2/6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

S.S., 2d Civ. No. B334820 (Super. Ct. No. 21FL01310) Respondent, (Santa Barbara County)

J.S.,

Appellant.

Appellant J.S.1 challenges the trial court’s denial of her domestic violence restraining order (DVRO) request and its order of joint legal and physical custody of minor child K. She contends the trial court applied the wrong legal standard in denying her

1 We use initials to protect personal privacy in domestic

violence prevention appeals. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.90(b)(1).)

DVRO and declining to apply the Family Code section 30442 presumption against awarding custody to a parent who has committed domestic violence in the previous five years. We disagree and will affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND J.S. and S.S. were married seven years when they separated in 2021. Their daughter M. was six, and their son K. was four. J.S. filed a request under the Domestic Violence Prevention Act (DVPA) for a DVRO against S.S. (§ 6200 et seq.) She sought an order for S.S. to move out of the family home, and an award of sole legal and physical custody of M. and K. She supported her DVRO request with a declaration alleging increasing patterns of abuse by S.S. including sexual assault, stalking, harassment, emotional, verbal, and physical abuse, and destruction of J.S.’s personal property. The trial court set a DVRO hearing and issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) protecting J.S. and the children, giving J.S. exclusive use of the home, and granting her temporary sole legal and physical custody of M. and K. S.S. opposed J.S.’s DVRO request, denied her accusations, and alleged she was using the children against him. J.S. was self-represented at the DVRO hearing and S.S. was represented by counsel. The court, Judge Timothy Staffel, examined J.S. regarding her DVRO request and the incident prompting her to seek protection. Judge Staffel made an “interim order without prejudice to either party” dissolving the TRO, issuing temporary mutual non-

S.S. v. J.S. CA2/6

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

CODY, J.

BALTODANO, J.

AI Brief