Marriage of Macias and Cuevas CA4/2 (2022) · DecisionDepot
Marriage of Macias and Cuevas CA4/2
California Court of Appeal Dec 8, 2022 No. E078233Unpublished
Filed 12/8/22 Marriage of Macias and Cuevas CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
In re the Marriage of ANNETTE S. MACIAS AND ALBERT CUEVAS.
ANNETTE S. MACIAS, E078233 Respondent, (Super.Ct.No. HED1500092) v. OPINION ALBERT CUEVAS,
Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Joan F. Burgess,
harassing, telephoning, including, but not limited to, making annoying telephone calls as
described in Section 653m of the Penal Code, destroying personal property, contacting,
either directly or indirectly, by mail or otherwise, coming within a specified distance of,
or disturbing the peace of the other party, and, in the discretion of the court, on a showing
of good cause, of other named family or household members.’ (§ 6320, subd. (a).)” (S.M.
v. E.P. (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1249, 1264.)
The record we have would, if presented at the hearing, have supported the trial
judge’s conclusion that Cuevas committed acts constituting domestic abuse under the
statute. The report concerning Cuevas’s accusations of sexual abuse contains substantial
evidence to support a finding that Cuevas repeatedly made baseless accusations of child
10
sexual assault against Macias’s father as a way to obtain leverage in disputes with the
mother. Most important, the child herself denied the accusation. But so did the child’s
grandfather, and the social worker who interviewed him found forthright and credible.
The division found Cuevas’s accusations unfounded, just as child welfare authorities did
when Cuevas made similar accusations in 2010. In that case, Cuevas himself admitted the
accusations were false. The report also indicates the child complained of repeated
outbursts of anger which affected her mental well-being.
Meanwhile, the medical records Cuevas submitted to this court do not undermine
the trial judge’s ruling. They are, at best, ambiguous, showing his daughter suffered from
a few relatively innocuous maladies like a cough and loss of appetite, some sort of rash or
bumps on her inner thighs, and ear infections. At worst, they provide no support and
suggest Cuevas is entangled in a conspiracy theory that is disrupting his own life as well
as that of his daughter. It’s notable that some of these records concern a medical
condition Cuevas used as the basis for his admittedly false 2010 report of sexual abuse.
To the extent the trial judge erred by excluding those records, and we emphasize the
record does not even establish this ruling occurred, we would find the decision harmless.
The same is true regarding the trial judge’s taking judicial notice of father’s prior
convictions.
Cuevas cites cases in which fathers who had been falsely accused of sexual
abusing of their children regained visitation rights. (Begier v. Strom (1996) 46 Cal.
App.4th 877.) The appellate decision in Begier doesn’t specifically address the legal issue
11
of visitation, but instead rejected malicious prosecution claims based on false accusations
made in family law proceedings. (Id. at pp. 886-888.) In any event, the fact that some
fathers have prevailed against false accusations of abuse don’t help Cuevas. Though, as
we noted, mother amended her petition to state sexual abuse allegations against him, the
division’s report doesn’t support finding he committed such abuse, and the record doesn’t
indicate those accusations formed any basis for issuing the protective order. Instead, it
appears the protective order was based on Cuevas’s angry outbursts, his threats against
Macias and her family, and his own false allegations of sexual abuse against the child’s
grandfather.
We reiterate that the flaws in the appellate record are substantial and limit our
ability to provide a full review of the merits. However, the investigation by the division
supports the court’s ruling.
III
DISPOSITION
We affirm the judgment. Cuevas shall bear his own costs on appeal.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
SLOUGH J. We concur:
CODRINGTON Acting P. J.
RAPHAEL J.
12
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court affirmed the trial court's issuance of a permanent domestic violence restraining order and custody award, holding that the appellant failed to provide an adequate record or legal authority to demonstrate error.
Issues
Did the trial court err in allowing a minor to testify?
Did the trial court err in excluding medical records?
Did the trial court err in admitting evidence of the appellant's prior convictions?
Disposition. Affirmed
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“Most problematic for this appeal is the lack of a reporter’s transcript which would allow us to review the trial judge’s evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion and whether the evidence was sufficient to support entering a domestic violence”
“Without a proper record, we can’t determine whether the trial judge erred in making evidentiary rulings or granting the protective order.”