Sanchez v. Sanchez CA4/3

Filed 12/6/21 Sanchez v. Sanchez 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

KATHRYN DIANE SINGLETON SANCHEZ, G060056 Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. 20V001773) v. OPINION RICHARD LEE SINGLETON SANCHEZ,

Respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Michael E. Perez, Judge. Affirmed. Arc Point Law and Mark Piesner for Appellant. Richard Lee Singleton Sanchez, in pro. per., for Respondent. * * *

Appellant Kathryn Diane Singleton Sanchez appeals from a domestic violence restraining order (DVRO) issued against her. We affirm because the record supports the court’s determination that Kathryn’s conduct disturbed the peace of her adult son according to applicable legal principles.

I FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY In September 2020, Kathryn showed up at the home of her 41-year-old son, 1 Richard Lee Singleton Sanchez, twice on the same day. On her second visit, Kathryn refused to leave until police officers arrived, frightening Richard and his two children. Until 2015, Richard had lived with Kathryn for 36 years in her home in another country. Richard claimed he was unable to leave earlier due to financial circumstances and that before he had left, Kathryn had once “pick[ed] on [his] daughters for absolutely zero reason.” At the hearing on his DVRO request, Richard testified that when he had been a child, Kathryn had subjected him to physical and emotional abuse. Richard testified that, prior to September 2020, he had not communicated with Kathryn for at least five years. On the day of the incident at issue, Kathryn ignored his wife’s e-mail requesting she leave Richard and his family alone, returned to his home, refused to leave, banged on the door, and held down the doorbell for an extended period of time. After Kathryn ignored Richard’s warning he would call the police, he did so and she was contacted by officers in front of the home. Richard asserted to the trial court that Kathryn had threatened him “[i]ndirectly by not leaving” from the front of his home where the only entrance and exit 1 Because the appellant and respondent share a surname, we will refer to them by their first names to avoid confusion; we intend no disrespect.