Marriage of Baird and De La Cruz CA3

Filed 7/22/22 Marriage of Baird and De La Cruz CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----

In re the Marriage of CHRISTIAN WILLIAM C093140 BAIRD and SUANNY ZUGERLE DE LA CRUZ.

CHRISTIAN WILLIAM BAIRD, (Super. Ct. No. 20FL00688)

Appellant,

v.

SUANNY ZUGERLE DE LA CRUZ,

Respondent.

At the conclusion of a September 2020 hearing, the court commissioner ruled there was insufficient evidence to issue a domestic violence restraining order (DVRO) against Suanny Zugerle De La Cruz (Wife). Appellant Christian William Baird (Husband) appeals, arguing the commissioner abused his discretion as an evidentiary matter, and “effectively denied” Husband due process by “refus[ing] to take evidence” before denying the DVRO. Husband appeals without a reporter’s transcript, agreed statement, or settled statement of the relevant hearing. Given the limited record on appeal, we find no error and affirm.

1

FACTS AND HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDINGS On January 23, 2020, Husband filed a request for a DVRO against Wife and obtained a temporary restraining order (TRO) against her. In narrative portions of his pleading requesting a DVRO (and signed under penalty of perjury) Husband claimed that—a few days earlier—Wife was “angry, out of control, and in a rage” when she: (a) “threatened to leave with [the] children,” (b) demanded Husband “[g]ive her money or else [he] w[ould] be very sorry,” and (c) “[t]hrew objects at [him],” including a “heavy toy” and “a heavier electronic book,” which “cut” and “bruised” Husband’s knee. In addition to bruising to his leg, Husband said he experienced “fear . . . anxiety . . . shock . . . [and] sleep loss.” In a responsive pleading, Wife explained that Husband “caused a discussion by refusing to give [her] money for the week’s expenses . . . as he had promised.” This “was the first time” the couple “had a discussion like that and it last[ed] less than [five] minutes.” Furthermore, and due to three recent surgeries she had, Wife claimed she was unable to “perform[ ] any situation of violence.” Wife did not deny that she threw objects at Husband but insisted that she “never noticed that any of the baby’s toys hit him.” After a March 2020 court trial at which both Wife and Husband testified, and Husband played in open court an audio recording of the parties’ altercation in January 2020, the commissioner ruled “the evidence [was] sufficient to continue in force the [TRO] . . . to September 23, 2020 . . . .” (A transcript of the audio recording reflects that, at one point during the altercation, Wife cursed at Husband and complained that he could not “take care of anything. . . . When I go to the supermarket, I get more than $200.00 and you only give me $200 and something, and it’s not enough.”) The same commissioner who presided in March 2020 presided in September 2020. The “[p]arties participated . . . by Zoom,” and there was not a court reporter present. A