Marriage of G.H. and D.W. CA4/2 (2025) · DecisionDepot
Marriage of G.H. and D.W. CA4/2
California Court of Appeal Dec 9, 2025 No. E084237Unpublished
Filed 12/9/25 Marriage of G.H. and D.W. CA4/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
In re the Marriage of G.H. and D.W.
G.H., E084237 Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. RID1500117) v. OPINION D.W.,
Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Sharunne L. Foster,
Judge. Affirmed.
D.W., in pro. per., for Appellant.
No appearance for Respondent.
1
I.
INTRODUCTION
D.W., proceeding in pro. per., appeals the family court’s order issuing a domestic
violence restraining order (DVRO) against her at the request of her ex-husband, G.H. We
affirm.
II. 1 FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
D.W. and G.H. had M.H.W. in March 2014, and they have had consistent custody
disputes over him since G.H. filed this family law case within months of M.H.W.’s birth.
This appeal concerns only the family court’s restraining order rulings issued in July 2024.
G.H. and D.W. filed respective requests for DVROs against one another. G.H.’s
evidence review resolves conflicting evidence in favor of affirming the trial court].)
D.W. nonetheless contends the family court erred in three other respects. None
has merit.
First, she argues the restraining order should not have issued under Family Code
section 6211 because she was “not a perpetrator of abuse against anyone.” But “abuse”
for purposes of a DVRO is not limited to physical abuse; it can include “molesting” and
“harassing.” (Fam. Code, § 6320, subd. (a).) And, again, the fact that she allegedly did
not directly harass or attack G.H. is immaterial. A DVRO may be issued to prevent a
former spouse from “either directly or indirectly” contacting or “disturbing the peace of
another party.” (Ibid.) And “[t]his conduct may be committed directly . . . through the
use of a third party.” (Id., subd. (c).)
Second, D.W. argues the family court did not allow her the opportunity to cross-
examine G.H., in violation of Evidence Code section 776. D.W. does not cite anything in
the record to support this argument, so it is forfeited. (Dietz v. Meisenheimer & Herron
6
(2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 771, 800.) In any event, we have reviewed the transcript of the
DVRO request hearing and there is no indication that D.W. asked for but was denied the
opportunity to examine G.H.
Third, G.H. argues the family court violated California Rules of Court, rule 2 2.1040 by allowing G.H. to present the video of the altercation without sending it to her
before the hearing and failing to provide a transcript of the video at any point. We
conclude D.W. forfeited the argument.
When the hearing began, D.W. told the court she had not received a copy of the
video, so the family court put the hearing “on second call . . . in order for the parties to
exchange all evidence.” D.W. never objected that she did not receive a transcript of the
video. Because the video was only 45 seconds long, the break took only a few minutes,
and the hearing promptly resumed afterward without any further objection from D.W. By
failing to object that she did not timely receive a copy of the video or a transcript of it
before the hearing, D.W. forfeited any objection that G.H. and/or the family court
violated California Rules of Court, rule 2.1040. (See Duronslet v. Kamps (2012) 203
Cal.App.4th 717, 725.)
2 Rule 2.1040(b)(1) provides in relevant part that “before a party may present or offer into evidence any electronic sound or sound-and-video recording not covered under (a) [pertaining to depositions or other prior testimony], the party must provide to the court and to opposing parties a transcript of the electronic recording and provide opposing parties with a duplicate of the electronic recording.”
7
IV.
DISPOSITION
The family court’s custody orders of August 3, 2023, are affirmed. G.H. may
recover his costs on appeal.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
CODRINGTON J.
We concur:
RAMIREZ P. J.
RAPHAEL J.
8
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court affirmed the issuance of a domestic violence restraining order (DVRO) against the appellant, holding that she failed to provide an adequate record for review and that the trial court's findings were supported by substantial evidence.
Issues
Whether the appellant met her burden of providing an adequate record on appeal to challenge the DVRO.
Whether the trial court's issuance of the DVRO was supported by substantial evidence.
Whether the trial court erred in its evidentiary rulings or procedures regarding the admission of a video recording.
Disposition. Affirmed
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“As the appellant, D.W. had to provide us with an adequate record. D.W. failed to do so by omitting a copy of the video from the record. We therefore have no choice but to affirm the family court’s DVRO.”
“G.H.’s testimony at the hearing provided substantial evidence for the family court to issue a restraining order against D.W.”
“It is immaterial that D.W. did not directly contact G.H. and instead relied on her boyfriend to harass him.”