Valerie S. v. Kimberly P. CA1/1

Filed 3/29/22 Valerie S. v. Kimberly P. CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

VALERIE S., Plaintiff and Respondent, A162327 v. KIMBERLY P., (Alameda County Super. Ct. No. HF20049553) Defendant and Appellant.

Kimberly P. challenges the renewal of a domestic violence restraining order (DVRO) against her and in favor of her sister, Valerie S. Because Kimberly has failed to demonstrate the trial court abused its discretion or that the order is not supported by substantial evidence, we affirm. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND A. The Original DVRO In December 2019, Valerie S. was living with and caring for her mother, Jacqueline, in Oakland.1 Valerie had recently obtained a court order allowing her to change the locks and regain possession of her home. Valerie’s brother, V.P., and her sister, Kimberly P., were at her home, denying Valerie

We refer to the parties to this proceeding by their first names to 1

protect the identities of the litigants in this domestic violence proceeding. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.90(b)(1), (10), (11).)

and her uncle, J.G., access to the house. The police were called, and they ordered Kimberly to leave. Kimberly stopped and threatened Valerie from her car as Valerie was talking to a neighbor across the street. The following month, Valerie filed a request for a DVRO against Kimberly.2 The basis for the order was Kimberly’s interference with Valerie’s access to her home on December 28, 2019, threats she made that evening, and other incidents of abuse, harassment, and intimidation against Valerie and her family members during 2018 and 2019. The trial court issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) against Kimberly, restraining her from harassing or contacting Valerie until the hearing on the DVRO. The TRO also protected Jacqueline, J.G., and Valerie’s daughter. Kimberly filed a response to the DVRO petition. On January 14, 2020, the trial court held a hearing. Kimberly, Valerie, and J.G. all testified. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court found that Valerie met her burden of proof and entered a one-year DVRO. Among other things, the DVRO required Kimberly to refrain from contacting Valerie by any means, and required her to stay at least 100 yards away from Valerie, her home, her car, and her place of work. Kimberly did not appeal the restraining order. B. The Renewed DVRO On January 4, 2021, Valerie filed a request to renew the DVRO permanently. The basis for the renewal request was Kimberly’s violation of the restraining order, and Valerie’s fear of continued abuse if the restraining order was allowed to terminate. In her petition, Valerie averred that the day after the trial court had issued the one-year DVRO, Kimberly arrived at Valerie’s gym and entered