Connell v. Connell CA2/6

Filed 7/17/23 Connell v. Connell 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

MAYA CONNELL, 2d Civ. No. B322982 (Super. Ct. No. 21FL00943) Plaintiff and Respondent, (Santa Barbara County)

v.

AARON CONNELL,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appellant Aaron Connell appeals an ex parte order requiring supervision during visits with his son. The supervision requirements were initially imposed as part of a restraining order issued under the Domestic Violence Prevention Act (DVPA). (Fam. Code, §§ 6200, 6300.) We conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it issued the order and affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Aaron and Maya1 divorced in 2018. Their two children lived with Maya but saw Aaron on occasion. Maya obtained a

We use the first names of the parties for clarity, intending 1

no disrespect.

domestic violence restraining order against Aaron in 2021 following an incident between him and their 17-year-old daughter (restraining order). The restraining order prohibited contact with his daughter and restricted him to monthly supervised visits with their nine-year-old son, A.C. It allowed unsupervised visits with A.C. to resume if, among other things, Aaron joined an alcohol monitoring program and documented his compliance. Aaron demanded an unsupervised visit with A.C. in August of 2022. Maya requested ex parte orders keeping the original supervision requirements in effect. She expressed concern about Aaron’s mental health and requested the court order him to provide a verifiable physical address before allowing unsupervised visits with A.C. Maya further alleged Aaron had not completed his 30-day alcohol monitoring program. Maya and her counsel appeared at the ex parte hearing remotely via Zoom. The trial court granted her requests and issued an “Order After Ex Parte Application for Supervised Visitation” (ex parte order). It confirmed the original restraining order remained “in full force and effect.” Aaron received notice of the hearing but did not attend in person or remotely. He appealed the order.2