Mackinga v. Mackinga CA2/6

Filed 9/8/22 Mackinga v. Mackinga CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

KELLY MACKINGA, 2d Civil No. B314989 (Super. Ct. No. 17FLP-0313) Plaintiff and Appellant, (San Luis Obispo County)

v.

DARREL MACKINGA,

Defendant and Respondent.

Appellant Kelly Mackinga appeals from the order renewing a domestic violence restraining order (DVRO). (Fam. Code, § 6300 et seq.) She contends the trial court abused its discretion when it excluded her minor children as protected parties.1 We affirm.

1 Respondent has not filed a responsive brief. Accordingly, we “decide the appeal on the record, the opening brief, and any oral argument by the appellant.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.220(a)(2).)

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Appellant Kelly Mackinga and respondent Darrel Mackinga separated in June 2017. Their marriage was dissolved in January 2019. They had three children together (“the children”). In August 2019, appellant filed a request for a DVRO. She included a text message respondent sent her in April in which he said, “Now just fuck off and die already.” In a series of texts in August, respondent complained that appellant was “keeping me out of my kids’ lives,” and used profanities. He texted, “Wish you would just fucking die!” When she said she would call the police, he texted, “Do it!! I can’t fucking wait!!! Looking at my tucking [sic] gun!!!” The request for DVRO stated the children needed protection because respondent “cannot control his anger,” “lets himself go” when drunk, and “is not safe for our kids to be with.” Appellant stated that the children did not want to be with respondent, who rarely visited with them. In June 2020, the court issued a DVRO based on the stipulation of the parties. The order prohibited respondent from harassing, threatening, or assaulting appellant or the children, destroying their personal property, or coming within 100 yards of appellant’s person, home, or vehicle. The court ordered that respondent and the children participate in conjoint therapy with a licensed therapist “to help Respondent and the children re-establish their relationships.” The order expired on May 15, 2021. In April 2021, appellant filed a request to renew the DVRO. She summarized the prior incidents and said she was afraid respondent would abuse her in the future because he had abused