Marriage of A.P. & J.P. CA4/1

Filed 9/24/20 Marriage of A.P. & J.P. CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

In re the Marriage of A.P. and J.P. D076146 A.P.,

Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. 18FDV05478C)

v.

J.P.,

Respondent.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Daniel F. Link, Judge. Affirmed. Antonyan Miranda and Anthony J. Boucek, for Appellant. Linda Cianciolo for Respondent. A.P. appeals from a domestic violence restraining order (DVRO), contending the court erred in issuing the order for three months duration rather than a longer period. She further contends the court erred by excluding their minor child as a protected person under the DVRO.

J.P. contends that the claim that the court erred by issuing a DVRO for a three-month period is moot because A.P. applied for and obtained a five- year renewal of the DVRO. J.P. further argues the trial court did not abuse its discretion by excluding the minor child from the DVRO. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND1 On December 21, 2018, A.P. filed an application for a DVRO against her husband, J.P., seeking to cover A.P., their two-year old minor child, and A.P.’s mother and father. On May 17, 2019, the court evaluated the evidence and concluded the minor child was not at risk of harm from J.P.: “I do not feel that [J.P.] clipping his daughter on the leg, I do not believe that he knowingly did that and purposely did that and meant to cause his child harm. I do not feel that by putting a diaper on too tightly that he meant to cause his daughter harm. I do not feel that [the minor] is unsafe in father’s care. I’m taking [her] off the restraining order.” The court granted the DVRO for three months, covering everyone except the couple’s minor child. In July 2019, A.P. filed the instant appeal challenging the three-month DVRO. A.P. subsequently requested a renewal of the DVRO. On September 23, 2019, following a hearing, the family court (Judge Enrique Camarena) issued a first amended renewed DVRO against the same parties for five years under Family Code section 6345, subdivision (a).2