California Court of Appeal Apr 6, 2016 No. D068562Unpublished
Filed 4/6/16 S.C. v. B.L. CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
S.C., D068562
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v. (Super. Ct. No. ED94188)
B.L.,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Selena Dong
Epley, Judge. Affirmed.
Gretel Smith, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
B.L., in pro. per., for Defendant and Appellant.
B.L. (Mother) appeals from an order denying a restraining order against S.C.
(Father), the father of her minor child (Child). Mother argues the court erred by: (1)
proceeding with a hearing on the restraining order in her absence despite her request for a
continuance; (2) failing to consider a protective order from Arkansas, in violation of the
Uniform Interstate Family Support Act; and (3) failing to consider evidence of child
abuse and a prior restraining order against Father. We affirm the order.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Mother provided a limited appellate record, designating only the minutes from
three hearings and the findings and order from one. She did not include the petition for
Loeffler v. Medina (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 1495, 1505.) We review the trial court's
ruling for abuse of that broad discretion, which occurs only if the court's ruling exceeds
the bounds of reason, fails to apply correct legal standards, or is without substantial
support in the evidence. (S.M. v. E.P. (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1249, 1265; Gonzalez,
supra, at p. 420.)
III. Analysis
Mother argues that the court erred in proceeding with the hearing on her request
for a restraining order without providing her adequate notice. However, Mother and
Father were both present at a hearing on June 1, 2015, at which the court confirmed the
2 Sections 243 and 245 were amended in 2015, with the changes taking effect on January 1, 2016. (Stats. 2015, ch. 411, § 5, p. 3719.) 6
June 8, 2015 hearing on the restraining order. Despite the court's confirmation of the
hearing date with both parties, Mother failed to appear at the June 8 hearing to present
her case and, in her absence, the Court properly denied and dismissed the restraining
order request. (See § 6320.5, subd. (b), former § 243, subds. (a), (b) & (c) (amended by
Stats. 2015, ch. 411, § 5, p. 3719).)
Mother contends she did not appear on June 8, 2015, because the court did not
notify her that it had denied her request for a continuance, which she alleges she filed
because she had not served Father with the petition at least five days before the hearing.
However, there is no evidence of a request for continuance in the record and, as the
record does not support Mother's assertion, we must resolve this ambiguity in favor of the
judgment. (Aguilar, supra, 21 Cal.4th at p. 132.) Further, Mother's failure to serve
Father is of no moment because Father was on notice of the request and the June 8
hearing, and was present on June 8, 2015, ready to proceed. Even if Mother had
requested a continuance as she asserts, absent notice the court had granted the
continuance—which she does not allege she received—she should have appeared at the
previously confirmed hearing. Mother had adequate notice of the hearing and an
opportunity to be heard. The court did not violate her due process rights by proceeding
with the hearing and denying her request for a restraining order in her absence.
Mother also contends Arkansas issued a protective order protecting her and Child
and argues the court did not take the validity of the Arkansas protective order into
consideration, thereby violating the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA)
(Fam. Code, § 5700.101 et seq., previously Fam. Code, § 4900 et seq.). Mother does 7
not provide any authority or specify what portion of the UIFSA she contends the court
violated and, more fundamentally, there is no evidence in the record indicating Arkansas
issued such a protective order. Instead, the record indicates the court in Arkansas
declined to assume jurisdiction, dismissed the case in that state, and indicated California
had subject matter jurisdiction, which the court in California confirmed. Further, if the
court was aware of a previously issued protective order from Arkansas, we must presume
the court acted duly and considered it when denying Mother's request for a restraining
order. (See Stevens, supra, 129 Cal.App.2d at p. 20.) For these reasons, Mother has not
established the court erred by failing to consider the validity of a protective order from
Arkansas. (See Aguilar, supra, 21 Cal.4th at p. 132.)
Mother also asserts the court was aware of a previous restraining order protecting
her from Father, photos she submitted, and investigation reports from DHS and CPS
concerning Child, but denied her an opportunity to present these items for review.
However, the record does not include any of these items, without a transcript, there is no
record of whether the court considered any of them. Again, we must view the record
before us and presume the court acted duly. (See Stevens, supra, 129 Cal.App.2d at p.
20.) Here the record suggests it was Mother's own failure to appear, rather than any error
by the court, that prevented her from presenting her case.
Finally, to the extent Mother intended to dispute the custody arrangement set forth
in the June 8, 2015 order, that portion of the order is not properly before this court on
appeal. Mother does not specifically raise any arguments or provide any authority
regarding that portion of the order, as required on appeal. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule
8
8.204(a)(1)(B).) In any event, the portion of the order regarding custody was
temporary—a further hearing on the custody arrangement being set for August 2015—
and not subject to appeal. (See Smith v. Smith (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 1074, 1090
[explaining a temporary custody order is interlocutory by definition and not appealable].)
DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed. Respondent is awarded his costs on appeal.
HALLER, J. WE CONCUR:
BENKE, Acting P. J.
IRION, J.
9
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court affirmed the denial of a domestic violence restraining order, holding that the appellant failed to demonstrate error where she did not appear at the scheduled hearing and failed to provide an adequate record for appellate review.
Issues
Did the trial court err by proceeding with a restraining order hearing in the appellant's absence?
Did the trial court fail to consider an alleged Arkansas protective order in violation of the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act?
Did the trial court err by failing to consider evidence of child abuse and prior restraining orders?
Disposition. Affirmed
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“Despite the court's confirmation of the hearing date with both parties, Mother failed to appear at the June 8 hearing to present her case and, in her absence, the Court properly denied and dismissed the restraining order request.”
“Mother had adequate notice of the hearing and an opportunity to be heard. The court did not violate her due process rights by proceeding with the hearing and denying her request for a restraining order in her absence.”