S.Z. v. A.P. CA4/3

Filed 6/4/24 S.Z. v. A.P. CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

S.Z.,

Appellant, G062566

v. (Super. Ct. No. 22D006625)

A.P., O P I N I ON

Respondent.

Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Lee L. Gabriel, Judge. Affirmed. Law Offices of Linda Louise Scott and Linda Louise Scott for Appellant. Holstrom, Block & Parke, Ronald B Funk and James R. Parke for Respondent. * * *

S.Z. (father) appeals from the trial court’s grant of a three-year domestic violence restraining order sought by his then spouse, A.P. (mother). He contends the trial

court erred in excluding testimony concerning statements allegedly made by mother more than 26 years ago, and he challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the trial court’s order. Having thoroughly reviewed the record, including sealed transcripts, we find no error. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding father’s proffered evidence, and substantial evidence — presumed and express — supports the court’s finding of abuse under the Domestic Violence Prevention Act (Fam. Code, § 6200 et seq.1; DVPA). Accordingly, we affirm the order. FACTS At the beginning of September 2022, a time when mother and father were married, mother filed a petition for a domestic violence restraining order seeking to protect her and the couple’s two minor children from father. Father filed a declaration opposing the ex parte grant of a temporary restraining order. The trial court granted a temporary restraining order pending a hearing on the matter, scheduled for the end of the month. Among other provisions, the order required father to vacate the family home and stay away from mother and the children, with no communication or visitation with the children. Five days later, father filed a petition for dissolution of their marriage. In a supplemental declaration filed prior to the first hearing, father claimed mother provided false and misleading information to the court. He denied having ever physically or mentally abused mother or their children, and he denied ever behaving aggressively toward them. In response to specific incidents raised by mother in support of her application, father claimed the incidents never happened. At the end of the September 2022 hearing, the court heard from the parties and appointed counsel to represent the children. It amended and extended the temporary restraining order to include one 3-hour weekly visit with the children, to be monitored by