Ortiz v. Clarke CA2/2

Filed 12/22/14 Ortiz v. Clarke CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO

TENIKA ORTIZ, B251740

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. YQ019492) v.

KARYL CLARKE,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Patricia J. Titus, Judge. Affirmed.

Karyl Clarke, in pro. per., for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

___________________________________________________

Karyl Clarke challenges a restraining order preventing him from contacting or threatening his former girlfriend, Tenika Ortiz. Clarke has not shown a miscarriage of justice arising from the allegedly deficient service of Ortiz’s petition, and his failure to provide an adequate record on appeal prevents this court from reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence presented at trial or the trial court’s evidentiary rulings. We affirm. FACTS Tenika Ortiz sought a restraining order against appellant Clarke, the father of her two minor children, requesting protection for herself and the children. Ortiz alleged that appellant banged on her door, yelling that he wanted to see the children; he threatened to go to Ortiz’s apartment with a bat and was “going to do whatever it took to see the kids.” The trial court granted a temporary restraining order on August 7, 2013. During a child custody hearing on August 14, 2013, appellant was served by the bailiff with a notice of hearing on Ortiz’s request for a protective order, prompting appellant to tell the trial judge that Ortiz was trying to deprive him of his parental rights. Ortiz declined the court’s offer to adjudicate her request for a restraining order concurrently with the child custody matter. Appellant served a written response to Ortiz’s request for a restraining order. On August 28, 2013, after hearing testimony from appellant and Ortiz, and considering appellant’s opposition papers, the court granted the restraining order. It prohibits appellant from harassing, attacking, striking, assaulting, hitting, following, stalking, surveilling, blocking, or contacting Ortiz until August 28, 2016. He is allowed “brief and peaceful” contact with Ortiz and their children, as required for court-ordered visitation. Appellant filed a notice of appeal one month after the court signed the restraining order. After taking the appeal, appellant persuaded the trial court to delete language in the order that barred him from going to his children’s school. DISCUSSION 1. Appeal and Review The Domestic Violence Prevention Act (DVPA) allows a court to issue a protective order enjoining specific acts of domestic violence and other harassing or