Suslova v. Stremovskiy CA4/1

Filed 10/19/23 Suslova v. Stremovskiy CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

EKATERINA SUSLOVA, D081240

Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. No. 22FL002081N)

OLEG STREMOVSKIY,

Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Victor M. Torres, Judge. Affirmed. Oleg Stremovskiy, in pro. per., for Appellant. Ekaterina Suslova, in pro. per., for Respondent.

I INTRODUCTION Oleg Stremovskiy (Father) appeals a domestic violence restraining order (DVRO) protecting Ekaterina Stremovskiy (Mother) and the couple’s minor daughter, Y.A.S. (Daughter), from Father for a period of three years. The DVRO prohibits Father from abusing the protected parties and permits

only peaceful contact between Father and the protected parties to effectuate court-ordered visitations between Father and Daughter. We affirm. II BACKGROUND Father and Mother got married in 2007. They had Y.S. (Son) in 2012, and Daughter in 2019. After Daughter’s birth, the family of four lived in Georgia for about six months. In January 2020, Mother and Daughter moved to Los Angeles, while Father and Son remained in Georgia. In December 2021, Father and Son moved to San Diego. The following month, Mother and Daughter moved to San Diego as well. On February 24, 2022, Mother filed a request for a DVRO against Father. Because the parties have not included the DVRO request in the appellate record, we are unable to summarize its allegations. However, according to the parties’ appellate briefs, the DVRO request alleged that Mother suffered years of physical, emotional, and verbal abuse at Father’s hands. The DVRO request asked the court to designate Mother, Son, and Daughter as protected parties. The trial court issued a temporary restraining order granting temporary legal and physical custody of both Son and Daughter to Mother. At some point thereafter, Son was removed as a protected party from the temporary restraining order. On or about March 8, 2022, Father filed an objection to the DVRO request, which denied the alleged abuse. The trial court set the matter for an evidentiary hearing, which took place over three half-day sessions on April 26, June 8, and August 31, 2022, and one full-day session on September 9, 2022. During the hearing, the court