Sandra V. v. Mark W. CA1/3

Filed 8/23/21 Sandra V. v. Mark W. CA1/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

SANDRA V., Respondent, A159934 v. MARK W., (Humboldt County Appellant. Super. Ct. No. FL2000012)

Appellant Mark W. appeals from the trial court’s denial of his request for a continuance and subsequent grant of a request filed by his mother-in- law, respondent Sandra V., for a domestic violence restraining order (DVRO) pursuant to the Domestic Violence Prevention Act (DVPA) (Fam. Code, § 6200 et seq.).1 Appellant contends the trial court’s denial of his request for a continuance to prepare for the hearing on his mother-in-law’s DVRO request was an abuse of discretion that deprived him of his right to a fair trial. Respondent declined to file a responsive brief. We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On January 6, 2020, respondent, age 70, filed a request for a DVRO against appellant, her son-in-law, under the DVPA for herself and her husband. According to respondent’s supporting documents, appellant

1 All statutory citations herein are to the Family Code.

1

harassed and emotionally abused her at a family therapy session by, among other things, berating, cursing at, and accusing her of mistreating her critically ill husband. Respondent attested, “It is my personal belief that if we were not in a confined area with a counselor present that he would of harmed me physically.” (Sic.) Respondent’s request described other incidents of appellant’s alleged harassment and abuse, including an incident around New Year’s Day 2020 when he “barricad[ed]” her driveway with his truck. Appellant accused her and her daughter (appellant’s wife) of mistreating their young son (respondent’s grandson).2 Respondent and her daughter were so scared they called the police, who responded and performed a child wellness check. Respondent’s request further alleged appellant called the charter school where her daughter worked as a special needs teacher and falsely accused her daughter of being a sex worker.3 According to the request, “[appellant] has further told my daughter that he is calling my work to accuse me of child abuse. It was embarrassing but I had to put my supervisor on alert to let her know this was his intention.” On January 7, 2020, the trial court issued a temporary restraining order against appellant and scheduled a DVPA hearing for January 27, 2020. At the hearing, appellant appeared in propria persona and advised the court he had not retained counsel and was unaware of his right to file a written response to respondent’s request. The court advised him that a written