Huang v. Pabianova CA2/2

Filed 5/28/24 Huang v. Pabianova CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FANG HUANG, B321951 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County v. Super. Ct. No. BD615033) MARIE PABIANOVA, Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Michael R. Powell, Judge. Affirmed. Maria Pabianova, in pro. per.; and Holstrom, Block & Parke, and Ronald B. Funk for Defendant and Appellant. Fang Huang, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Respondent.

__________________________________________

This is the third time the parties, a former husband and wife, have come before us. Following the dissolution of their marriage, the parties sought mutual restraining orders under the Domestic Violence Prevention Act (DVPA; Fam. Code, § 6200 et seq.1). The trial court held a hearing on both requests that included live witness testimony presented over several days. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court granted the former husband’s request and denied the former wife’s request for a domestic violence restraining order (DVRO). The former wife contends the order must be reversed because the court failed to comply with section 6305 and conducted the hearing in violation of her due process rights. We affirm the order. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND A. Marriage and Dissolution Fang Huang (husband) and Marie Pabianova (wife) married in January 2010. They separated in October 2014, and the judgment of dissolution ending their marriage was entered in January 2018. They have two children—C. (born in 2010) and A. (born in 2012). In their stipulated judgment of dissolution, wife and husband agreed to joint legal and physical custody of the children. B. Earlier Proceedings and Existing DVRO Requests In May 2021, the juvenile court dismissed a Welfare and Institutions Code section 300 petition against husband for insufficient evidence. Wife acknowledged she was the reporting

1 Statutory references are to the Family Code unless otherwise indicated.

2

party. The petition alleged husband physically abused the children. On November 18, 2021, a criminal protective order issued in August 2021 against husband as to his daughter A. was terminated. On November 30, 2021, wife filed a request for a DVRO to protect herself against husband. She described harassment and threats texted by husband in the middle of the night, prompting her to go to the hospital for chest pain and medical tests. On December 10, 2021, husband filed a request for a DVRO to protect himself and his children against wife. Husband asserted the children reported they had been forced by wife to make false allegations of physical and sexual abuse against him to authorities. C. DVRO Proceedings On January 27, 2022, husband appeared, represented by counsel and wife appeared, representing herself. Wife objected to husband calling the children to testify. The trial court decided to interview the children instead and asked the parties to submit questions for the court to ask. Next, the trial court explained the parties were to adhere to certain rules for the contested hearing: At the court’s discretion, time limits would be imposed on direct and cross-examination, so the parties were to use their time wisely; declarations would be admitted to the extent they did not lack foundation or rest on hearsay; the court would question the parties about their allegations and ask if they rested on their declarations; if one party failed to demonstrate a prima facie case, that party’s DVRO request would be dismissed, otherwise the court would allow the parties to continue questioning the witnesses. Neither party had