James People v. David People CA4/1

Filed 12/5/22 James P. v. David P. CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

JAMES P., D079643

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. No. 20FDV05674E)

DAVID P.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Wendy M. Behan, Judge. Affirmed. David P., in pro. per., for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. David P. appeals an order granting a restraining order against him in favor of his parents, James and Clara P. We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On December 1, 2020, James filed a request for a domestic violence restraining order against his son David. In his declaration supporting his request for the restraining order, James claimed that David was “delusional and suffers from . . . paranoid mental illnesses.” He noted that David had

become “fixated on the false idea that [James is] a sex offender.” James asserted that David’s behavior had “escalated to harassment and stalking,” and David even vandalized James’s home. Specifically, James alleged that David sent threatening texts to his mother, scrawled the words “Sex Trafficker” on the front door of James’s house, and etched the words “unregistered sex offender” on the welcome mat in front of the door. Pictures of the vandalism were attached to James’s declaration. In addition, James included printouts of texts that David had sent his mother in which he stated, among other things: (1) “You are bad people . . . you will be judged”; (2) “Im [sic] taking back this family from u [sic] evil idiots”; and (3) “Ur [sic] husband would be burned alive if we were in Salem [¶] And I wouldn’t stop it [¶] I’d provide a match.” James’s declaration also detailed a history of abuse David inflicted upon him. For example, 10 years earlier, sheriff deputies had to remove David from James’s home. David was physically abusive toward James and destroyed James’s property. Based on David’s history of abuse toward James as well as his more recent actions, James stated he was “afraid for [his] safety” and “need[ed] a restraining order to protect [him] from any further escalation in violence.” The hearing on the request for a restraining order was continued multiple times, and James, Clara, and David tried to address their problems through counseling and mediation. Ultimately, those efforts proved unsuccessful, and the court held a hearing regarding the request for a restraining order on August 12, 2021. At that hearing, David claimed that there was no evidence that he actually damaged James’s home. He also argued that “threatening to call the authorities” did not amount to the type of harassment that would trigger the need for a restraining order. David