Woo v. Woo CA1/5

Filed 12/12/13 Woo v. Woo CA1/5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

SUZANNE SIMS WOO, Plaintiff and Respondent, A137279 v. ALAN WOO, (San Mateo County Super. Ct. No. FAM0105651) Defendant and Appellant.

Alan Woo appeals from the trial court’s order renewing for five years a domestic violence restraining order against him, arguing the trial court employed the wrong legal standard and the evidence did not support the renewal. We reject his arguments and affirm. BACKGROUND In 2009, Suzanne Sims Woo sought a domestic violence restraining order against Alan Woo, her then husband and the father of her child.1 In February 2010, the parties commenced a multi-day hearing on the restraining order; around the same time, according to Suzanne, the parties’ case was “converted” to a dissolution of marriage action. At the restraining order hearing, Suzanne testified to two incidents involving physical force: In January 2009, Alan grabbed and twisted her forearms; and in August

1 For convenience, we refer to the parties by their first names; no disrespect is intended. 1

2009, Alan poked her in the chest with his finger. Alan admitted placing his hands on Suzanne’s forearms and brushing his raised finger against her, but denied using force or aggression in either incident. In March 2010, at the conclusion of the hearing, the court issued a two-year restraining order against Alan, which was subsequently modified in nonmaterial respects in June 2010. The restraining order expressly permitted contact related to Alan’s visitation rights with their child. Suzanne subsequently sought permission to relocate with their child to the east coast. A multi-day trial on the issue took place over the course of many months. In May 2012, the trial court issued a tentative decision granting Suzanne leave to relocate to the east coast and awarding Alan certain visitation rights. Meanwhile, in March 2012, Suzanne filed a request to renew the restraining order against Alan. Suzanne did not contend Alan had used physical force against her since the issuance of the original order. Instead, she cited the ongoing and contentious litigation over her requested relocation and certain behavior she characterized as “bullying.” A hearing on the renewal request was held before the same judge who presided over the hearing on the initial restraining order and the relocation trial. As part of the hearing, the court took judicial notice of the testimony and exhibits from the hearing on the initial restraining order. In June 2012, after hearing testimony and argument, the trial court announced from the bench its decision to grant Suzanne’s renewal request. The court found none “of the [new] contact that was alleged to be abusive.” However, it relied upon evidence from the hearing on the original restraining order that the court “did find to constitute domestic violence including the finger hitting [Suzanne] in the chest and the twisting of the arms.” The court also considered the current circumstances, including that “[t]here is a move away order contemplated.” The court concluded, “[Suzanne’s] fear in this case is well beyond that which you would expect in a case given the incidents that have occurred; however, the incidents that the court found were such that a reasonable person would be concerned, would have reasonable apprehension that given the situation occurring, given the situation of arguing in the future that, yeah, that might occur again.”