In re Marriage of George S. and N.K. CA1/5

Filed 5/11/16 In re Marriage of George S. and N.K. CA1/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE

In re the Marriage of GEORGE S. and N.K.

GEORGE S., Appellant, A145113 v. (San Mateo County N.K., Super. Ct. No. FAM0127687) Respondent.

Appellant George S. appeals from a Domestic Violence Prevention Act (DVPA; Family Code § 6200 et seq.)1 restraining order issued by the trial court. Appellant contends the court erred in making custody and visitation orders included in the restraining order. We affirm. BACKGROUND Appellant and respondent are the parents of S.S., born in May 2009. On January 6, 2015, appellant filed a petition for dissolution of marriage. On January 12, respondent filed a request for a domestic violence restraining order pursuant to the DVPA. She requested stay-away orders protecting her and S.S. from appellant and also requested child custody and visitation orders. Respondent alleged appellant had punched her in the hand and in the head and given S.S. a burn mark by dragging him on the carpet. She also

1 All undesignated section references are to the Family Code.

1

alleged appellant mixed prescription medication, marijuana, and alcohol. The trial court granted a temporary restraining order (TRO) and set a hearing on the request for a restraining order for February 4. On February 3, 2015, appellant filed a response to respondent’s request for a restraining order. He denied respondent’s allegations and requested joint legal and equal physical custody of S.S. On February 4, the hearing on the restraining order was continued to March 18, in order to provide respondent an opportunity to review appellant’s response. The court also referred the parties to family court services mediation and authorized visitation between appellant and S.S. supervised by appellant’s parents. On March 2, 2015, respondent filed a supplemental restraining order request, seeking supervision of appellant’s visitation by Rally Family Visitation Services (Rally). In a declaration, respondent explained that appellant’s parents were no longer willing to supervise visitation; a letter from appellant’s parents to that effect was attached as an exhibit to the declaration. The letter states, “[w]e are physically and emotionally not capable of handling this challenge.” Respondent also averred that appellant had been texting her “constantly” and that the texts were “harassing, confusing, and intimidating.” Respondent’s attorneys, Christiana Samuels and Holly Gutkovsky, submitted declarations describing, among other things, an intimidating visit by appellant to their offices. On March 5, 2015, a confidential family services report was prepared for consideration at the March 18 hearing. The report recommended that the parents and S.S. participate in a “Brief Focused Assessment” (BFA), which would result in a recommendation “as to how much contact time [S.S.] should be spending with each parent.” Appellant represented himself at the March 18, 2015 hearing on respondent’s request for a restraining order. No witnesses testified at the hearing, although the parties were sworn in by the court. Appellant denied a number of the allegations made by respondent and presented various documents to the court, particularly texts between him