Prikupets v. Prikupets CA1/1

Filed 11/17/15 Prikupets v. Prikupets CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE

IRINA PRIKUPETS, Respondent, A144470 v. VLADIMIR PRIKUPETS, (San Francisco County Super. Ct. No. FDV-13-810575) Appellant.

Appellant Vladimir Prikupets appeals from a renewed restraining order issued after a hearing in a domestic violence prevention case initiated by respondent Irina Prikupets. Because appellant has not met his burden of establishing reversible error, we will affirm the order. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY On October 24, 2013, respondent filed a request for a domestic violence restraining order1 against appellant. At the time, respondent was 77 years old and appellant was 81 years old. Although the parties reportedly had divorced in Russia in 1975, they both resided with their adult daughter and her husband. In her petition, respondent alleged appellant had yelled and threatened her and their daughter. According to respondent, the police had twice been called to the home following his outbursts. On the second occasion, he was placed on an involuntary psychiatric hold and taken to a

1 See Family Code section 6200 et seq.

hospital. Respondent and her daughter’s family were also given an emergency protective order. On October 25, 2013, the trial court issued a temporary restraining order. Appellant was ordered to move out of the family residence. On November 8, 2013, appellant filed a response to the request for the restraining order. On February 26, 2014, after multiple continuances, the trial court granted a restraining order. The order was set to expire on February 26, 2015. On January 2, 2015, respondent filed a request to renew the restraining order. In her request, she alleged appellant had violated the restraining order many times by telephoning her and her daughter, and by coming to the home and leaving objects on her doorstep with written messages that were hurtful and upsetting. On January 21, 2015, the trial court granted a two-year restraining order against appellant. This appeal followed. DISCUSSION Appellant’s opening brief, entitled “America—USA—Fashist [sic] Country Gestapo,” consists solely of a one-page “Statment [sic] of the case.” Without providing any citations to the appellate record, he asserts respondent and their daughter had falsely accused him of abusing drugs and alcohol, and of being mentally ill. The brief does not specify any error on the part of the trial court. His reply brief does reference the alleged incidents that occurred around October 2013, but fails to address the events leading to the trial court’s issuance of the renewed restraining order. An “ ‘order of a lower court is presumed to be correct on appeal, and all intendments and presumptions are indulged in favor of its correctness.’ ” (Schnabel v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 704, 718.) An appellant has the burden of affirmatively showing prejudicial error (City and County of San Francisco v. Funches (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 243, 244–245) and of ensuring that an adequate record exists for review (In re Kathy P. (1979) 25 Cal.3d 91, 102). The presumption of correctness also imposes a burden on the appellant to present argument and authority on each point; otherwise, the