J.A. v. J.C. CA2/1

Filed 12/23/25 J.A. v. J.C. CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE

J.A., B345733

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 23PSPT00262) v.

J.C.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Lisa R. Washington, Judge. Affirmed. J.C., in pro. per., for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. ____________________________

Appellant J.C. (father) appeals in propria persona from a domestic violence restraining order and child custody order obtained by respondent J.A. (mother). There is no appearance by mother. As set forth below, the record on appeal is inadequate to address father’s challenges. Accordingly, we affirm by memorandum disposition. On January 2, 2025, mother requested a domestic violence restraining order against father, with whom she shares a child. The request itself is not in the record on appeal, although mother’s supporting declaration is. In the declaration, mother states the court previously had granted her sole legal and physical custody of the child, and granted father “non-professional supervised visitation on alternate weekends, not to exceed eight hours per visit.”1 In support of the restraining order request, mother describes a conversation with father about their child and father’s religious beliefs concerning death, which alarmed her. She also describes an incident in which father became angry and damaged property at father’s mother’s house, and an incident in which father took an urn from mother’s house containing the ashes of another shared child that died shortly after birth. Father filed a response to the restraining order request on January 29, 2025. In the response, father described amicable occasions involving father, mother, and the child. He speculated that his struggles with lupus caused mother to view him as an inadequate parent. He disputed that his religious conversation with mother was cause for alarm, explaining he merely intended