Koromah v. Kappia CA2/8

Filed 7/2/15 Koromah v. Kappia CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

MARGARET KOROMAH, B254296

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. Nos. YQ020061 and BF02535) v.

KENNY KAPPIA,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. John A. Slawson, Judge. Affirmed.

Kenny Kappia, in pro. per., Defendant and Appellant.

Law Office of Farshid John Fakourfar and Farshid John Fakourfar for Plaintiff and Respondent.

__________________________

Kenny Kappia (father) appeals from a Domestic Violence Prevention Act restraining order entered in favor of Margaret Koromah (mother), the mother of his child. We conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in entering the order, and therefore affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Mother and father were never married, but had a child together in 2002. A child custody order granted father visitation with the child every other weekend; the child was to be handed off at a neutral location. At some point, the exchanges stopped occurring. Several times, father came to mother’s home, demanding to see his son. He pounded on the door, frightening mother’s other children. Father made verbal threats against mother, stating that he would kill mother if his son did not come out. He also made multiple telephone calls to mother, in which he threatened to kill her and her husband. On another occasion, he threatened that her son would be abducted and all she would see is his dead body. On the basis of these acts, mother sought and received a domestic violence temporary restraining order. The matter was set for a hearing on a permanent restraining order. Father opposed mother’s petition, arguing that mother’s view of the facts was incorrect. Father took the position that he had come peacefully to mother’s house to obtain his court-ordered visitation, and that when mother failed to exchange the child, father had made reports to the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department of mother’s violations of the visitation order. Father argued that mother had fabricated her allegations against him in retaliation for his reports to the sheriff’s department. The trial court believed mother, disbelieved father, and entered a five-year restraining order. Father filed a timely notice of appeal.