Castellon v. Balbigy CA2/8

Filed 7/2/14 Castellon v. Balbigy CA2/8

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

JUDITH CASTELLON, B245122

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. LD062461) v.

NADER BALBIGY;

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Steff Padilla, Christine Ewell and Virginia Keeny, Judges. Affirmed.

Nader Balbigy, in pro per, Appellant.

No appearance by Respondent.

__________________________

Nader Balbigy appeals from the family law court’s domestic violence restraining order that prohibited him from having contact with his wife and children. We affirm that order.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On August 10, 2012, the trial court issued a domestic violence restraining order against Nader Balbigy in connection with the marital dissolution proceeding brought by his wife, Judith Castellon. Distilled, that order commanded Balbigy to refrain from contacting, stalking, or harassing Castellon and their three children. At the hearing on Castellon’s application for that order, Balbigy admitted that he was already subject to a restraining order that resulted from his earlier no contest plea to a criminal domestic violence charge. The trial court reviewed the criminal court’s restraining order and pointed out that the criminal court had not checked off the box that would have allowed Balbigy to have contact with his children. Castellon claimed that Balbigy had, in violation of the criminal court restraining order, contacted the children to say negative things about her and pressure them into living with him, stalked her on Facebook through a fictional identity, checked up on her eBay activities, and had threatened to harm three of her relatives. Balbigy admitted that he had contacted his children by phone and in person, had been following Castellon on Facebook, obtained records of her cell phone activity because his name was on the account, examined her eBay activities, and secretly recorded a conversation he had with her. Castellon said she wanted an order that would allow Balbigy to see the children during monitored visits with a therapist in order to address the emotional abuse they suffered from his conduct. The trial court granted the restraining order and was in the process of awarding visitation on that basis when Balbigy interrupted and said he did not want visitation. The trial court said it was “sorry for your children because they love you.” The trial court then issued a five-year restraining order against Balbigy that applied to his wife and children.