A.R. v. Chris R. CA4/1

Filed 11/21/23 A.R. v. Chris R. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

A.R., D080340

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. No. 21FDV03545E)

CHRIS R.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Sharon L. Kalemkiarian, Judge. Affirmed. Chris R., in pro. per., for Defendant and Appellant. A.R., in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Respondent.

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 Chris R. appeals from the trial court’s January 3, 2022 order denying his cross-petition for a domestic violence restraining order against his then 17-year-old daughter A.R. (See Fam. Code, § 6200 et seq.) Chris and his

1 We resolve this case by memorandum opinion pursuant to California Standards of Judicial Administration, section 8.1.

former wife of nearly ten years, Victoria R., have two children, A.R. and C.R.; they divorced in 2013. There are four appeals currently pending in this court involving Chris, Victoria, A.R., and Chris’s longtime girlfriend Naomi Yael

Bar-Lev.2 This case began when A.R. sought a domestic violence restraining order

against Chris stemming from an incident that occurred on July 10, 2021.3 Chris in response sought his own domestic violence restraining order against A.R. After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied both requests, finding there was no evidence either party was then in need of protection. The court found that A.R. and Chris no longer lived together; since the July 2021 incident, neither of them had sought the other out or attempted to be near one another; and the incident was “over, and . . . done.” The court made its ruling without prejudice. Chris is appearing in propria persona, as he did in the trial court. Although self-represented, we may not excuse Chris from following the rules