Christopher U. v. Andrew H. CA4/1

California Court of Appeal Jun 15, 2022 No. D079236Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the issuance of a domestic violence restraining order, holding that the appellant failed to provide an adequate record to demonstrate error and that substantial evidence supported the trial court's findings of abuse.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in finding sufficient evidence of abuse to support a domestic violence restraining order.
Whether the appellant met the burden of providing an adequate record to demonstrate prejudicial error on appeal.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Because Andrew has failed to furnish an adequate record to affirmatively demonstrate error, the claim must be resolved against him.”

“Even were we to consider only the testimony before the court and the evidence provided in the clerk’s transcript on appeal, we would nonetheless conclude substantial evidence supports the court’s factual findings here.”

Filed 6/15/22 Christopher U. v. Andrew H. CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

CHRISTOPHER U., D079236

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. No. 21FDV02255E)

ANDREW H.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Laura Miller, Judge. Affirmed. Andrew H., in pro. per., for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent. Christopher U. filed a request for a domestic violence restraining order (DVRO) against Andrew H., pursuant to the Domestic Violence Prevention

Act (DVPA) (Fam. Code,1 § 6200 et seq.). The trial court granted the request and ordered Andrew to pay $717 for costs and services, for vandalism to Christopher’s car in connection with the request. Andrew challenges the

1 Further statutory references are to the Family Code.

order, contending there was not sufficient evidence to support the court’s order. We are not able to fully evaluate Andrew’s claims because the record is incomplete, and so we will affirm it. We note that even were we to reach a conclusion based only on the record before us, we would nonetheless affirm the order. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Christopher filed a request for a DVRO against Andrew on May 12, 2021. He lodged documents in connection with his request. Neither the initial petition nor any documents lodged with the court in connection with

the petition are in the record before us.2 At the hearing, Christopher explained the two had broken up in February, and Andrew had repeatedly emailed him and texted him from numerous fake phone numbers. He told the court that his father’s car passenger window was busted in on February 27, 2021. Two minutes after the window was broken, Christopher received a text message from Andrew

Christopher U. v. Andrew H. CA4/1

AI Brief

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

CHRISTOPHER U., D079236

ANDREW H.,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

O’ROURKE, J.

AARON, J.

AI Brief