Marriage of Glines CA3

Filed 9/25/25 Marriage of Glines CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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) ----

In re the Marriage of MARY ANNE and SCOTT C100488 ALLEN GLINES.

SCOTT ALLEN GLINES, (Super. Ct. No. 20FL00024)

Respondent,

v.

MARY ANNE GLINES,

Appellant.

Appellant Mary Anne Glines filed a request for a domestic violence restraining order against her then husband respondent Scott Allen Glines. After the trial court granted appellant a temporary restraining order, the court ultimately denied the request and vacated the temporary restraining order. Appellant appeals, challenging the settled statement and the trial court’s order denying the restraining order. We affirm.

1

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Appellant filed a request for a domestic violence restraining order against respondent on December 28, 2022. The trial court granted a temporary restraining order on the same day and set the next hearing for January 18, 2023. The trial court continued the restraining order hearing several times until December 14, 2023. The order after the December 14, 2023 hearing stated the court held a trial and both parties testified regarding the allegations in the request for a restraining order. After considering “all pleadings and the evidence presented by each party,” the court found “no reasonable connection between [appellant’s] distress and [respondent’s] conduct.” Specifically, the court found appellant “ha[d] not met her burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that abuse occurred[,] or that [respondent’s] conduct falls under the Domestic Violence Prevention Act. [(Fam. Code, § 6200 et seq.)]” Thus, the court denied appellant’s request for a domestic violence restraining order and vacated the temporary restraining order. Appellant later submitted a proposed settled statement for the December 14, 2023 trial. The trial court’s ruling on appellant’s settled statement noted, “There was no court reporter present at the December 14, 2023 hearing, and no court-created audio recording of the proceeding. . . . The court itself did not maintain detailed notes of that hearing, and has nowhere near a verbatim recollection of these particular proceedings.” The court also believed appellant’s proposed settled statement was, “at a minimum, incomplete in that it d[id] not reflect the full scope of [respondent’s] evidence.” The court then provided a settled statement of its own summarizing the hearing and the court’s findings in language copied from its order issued after the December 4, 2023 hearing. After “[n]either party submitted any modifications or objections to the [trial court’s proposed] corrected statement within the time permitted,” and “[n]either party requested a hearing,” the trial court certified this statement as “an accurate summary of the testimony and other evidence that is relevant to the appellant’s reasons for the appeal.”