Tiffany O. v. Joshua O. CA4/3

Filed 2/18/21 Tiffany O. v. Joshua O. CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

TIFFANY O.,

Respondent, G058744

v. (Super. Ct. No. 18D003529)

JOSHUA O., OPINION

Appellant.

Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Julie A. Palafox, Judge. Affirmed. Joshua O., in pro. per., for Appellant. No appearance by Respondent. * * *

Respondent Tiffany O. petitioned for a domestic violence restraining order against the father of her minor children, appellant Joshua O.1 At an initial hearing in December 2019, the trial court granted Tiffany’s petition, finding Joshua had committed domestic violence against Tiffany and their children. The court gave Tiffany sole custody of the children and, aside from one caveat, ordered Joshua not to visit them, “pending further order.” In January 2020, the court ordered Joshua to attend a batterer’s treatment program and noted its “[e]xisting orders [] remain[ed] in full force and effect.” Joshua challenges the trial court’s January 2020 order. He does not discuss the evidence Tiffany presented, nor does he provide a reporter’s transcript for the December 2019 hearing. Joshua has forfeited his claim of trial court error and we therefore affirm the court’s order. I FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY A. December and January Hearings on Tiffany’s Domestic Violence Restraining Order Petition In 2018, Tiffany filed for a dissolution of her marriage to Joshua, and, in 2019, she filed a domestic violence restraining order petition against him. The trial court held an initial hearing on the petition in December where, according to its minute order, Joshua and Tiffany testified. The court granted Tiffany’s petition, finding that “acts of domestic violence . . . occurred pursuant to [Family Code sections] 6203 and 6320[, that Joshua was] the perpetrator, and [Tiffany] and [the] children [were] the victims.” The court found Joshua’s testimony not credible and there was “sufficient evidence of [Joshua] harassing [Tiffany].” At the initial December 2019 hearing, the trial court ruled Tiffany would “have sole legal and sole physical custody of the minor children,” and Joshua would 1 As is customary in marriage cases involving parties with the same surname, we use each party’s first name for clarity. We intend no disrespect.