S.T. v. H.T. CA3

Filed 10/29/25 S.T. v. H.T. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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) ----

S.T., C101371

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 24DV01345)

v.

H.T.,

Defendant and Appellant.

At the conclusion of a May 29, 2024, hearing, the trial court issued a domestic violence restraining order (DVRO) requiring appellant H.T.1 to stay away from respondent S.T. and not to abuse or contact her. Appellant argues the trial court erred by issuing the DVRO against him and ordering him to pay respondent $1,500 in attorney fees. We disagree and affirm the judgment (order). BACKGROUND On May 29, 2024, the trial court heard respondent’s application for a DVRO. Both parties were present without counsel; they were sworn in, and each testified. No court reporter was present. The court considered the evidence presented and “weighed

1 To protect their privacy, we refer to the parties by their initials. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.90(a)(1), (b)(10).)

1

the credibility of the parties[’] witnesses. The court found [respondent] to be credible and [her] testimony supported by the evidence in the case.” The trial court summarized the evidence: The parties met online and dated for approximately three months. They lived together for two months. In April 2024, respondent broke up with appellant, who became upset, grabbed respondent by the arms, and pushed her. Respondent testified that on two occasions, appellant forced her to have sex “while they were asleep in bed.” Respondent also produced text messages from appellant saying, “he would not let her go.” In support of her request for attorney fees, respondent showed the trial court a retainer agreement and proof that she had paid her attorney $1,500. The attorney did not appear at the DVRO hearing. The trial court issued a DVRO for a period of one year and ordered appellant to pay respondent $1,500 for her attorney’s fees. Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal. DISCUSSION The Domestic Violence Prevention Act (DVPA) (Fam. Code,2 § 6200 et seq.) authorizes a court “ ‘ “ ‘to restrain any person for the purpose of preventing a recurrence of domestic violence and ensuring a period of separation of the persons involved’ upon ‘reasonable proof of a past act or acts of abuse.’ ” ’ [Citations.] Abuse includes ‘intentionally or recklessly caus[ing] or attempt[ing] to cause bodily injury’. . . ‘plac[ing] a person in reasonable apprehension of imminent serious bodily injury to that person or to another’; and ‘engag[ing] in any behavior that has been or could be enjoined’ under section 6320. (§ 6203, subd. (a).)” (Curcio v. Pels (2020) 47 Cal.App.5th 1, 11.) “We review the [court ruling granting or denying] a DVPA restraining order for abuse of