Jose S. v. Payan CA2/2

California Court of Appeal Dec 6, 2023 No. B315071Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in issuing a domestic violence restraining order, as there was substantial evidence of abuse and the trial judge's examination of witnesses was proper. The court further noted that the appellant forfeited her challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence by failing to provide a fair summary of all material evidence.

Issues

Whether the trial court abused its discretion in issuing a restraining order under the Domestic Violence Prevention Act.
Whether the appellant forfeited her challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence by failing to provide a fair summary of the record.
Whether the trial judge committed error by examining the parties before allowing attorney questioning.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Our independent review of the record confirms that the judge’s examination was proper and did not hinder the parties’ ability to present their cases.”

Filed 12/6/23 Jose S. v. Payan CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO

JOSE S., B315071

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 20STPT02798) v.

PATRICIA PAYAN,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Michael R. Powell, Judge. Affirmed.

Diamond & Associates and David D. Diamond for Appellant.

No appearance for Respondent.

_______________________

Patricia Payan (appellant) challenges an order granting Jose S.’s (respondent) request for a restraining order. She argues there was insufficient evidence to support the order and the trial court erred when examining the parties. We find the order was properly issued under the Domestic Violence Prevention Act (Fam. Code, § 6200 et seq.)1 (DVPA) and affirm.

BACKGROUND Appellant and respondent live together with four children, their biological four year old, and the three older children from respondent’s previous relationship. Claiming appellant had engaged in verbal and physical abuse of respondent and the children, respondent sought a restraining order in a petition filed on May 11, 2021. That same day, a temporary restraining order was issued, and appellant was ordered to move out of the family home. During the June 24, 2021 hearing, both parties presented evidence of the derogatory statements they made to each other, appellant’s alleged physical abuse of the four-year-old child, and injuries caused to respondent when appellant hit him with a door frame segment containing two nails. The trial court issued a three-year restraining order against appellant. The order also required her to move out of the residence and to enroll in a 52- week domestic violence program. After discussions with the parties, the trial court identified the terms of appellant’s visitation with the four-year-old child. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal.

Jose S. v. Payan CA2/2

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

JOSE S., B315071

PATRICIA PAYAN,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief