Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
N.W., representing herself, appealed a one-year restraining order issued against her under California's Domestic Violence Prevention Act. Her sister, E.Z., sought protection in early September 2025. The superior court initially issued a temporary restraining order and scheduled a September 30 hearing. A process server declared under penalty of perjury that N.W. had been personally served at E.Z.'s address. N.W., E.Z., and several witnesses appeared at the unreported hearing, after which the court imposed a three-year restraining order. The order stated that no additional proof of service was required because both sisters attended.
Less than two months later, N.W. moved to set aside or vacate the order. She alleged defective service, false statements by E.Z., harassment and safety concerns caused by E.Z. and her family, and interference with N.W.'s care for their mother. Following another unreported hearing, the court shortened the order to expire September 30, 2026, and again found no further proof of service necessary. N.W. then sought reconsideration, arguing that there were no findings of recent abuse, reasonable apprehension of future abuse, or an ongoing threat. The court denied reconsideration because it had already held such a hearing and later denied her motion to quash or vacate as untimely. N.W. appealed and subsequently filed a proposed settled statement in superior court.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal affirmed. It first observed that the one-year order had expired, making the appeal apparently moot. The court concluded that whether the trial court abused its discretion in granting E.Z.'s request was not a recurring question of broad public interest, and N.W. had not urged another discretionary exception. Nevertheless, the court exercised its discretion to consider the appeal rather than dismiss it.
The decisive problem was the appellate record. Although N.W.'s appendix contained a proposed settled statement, her record designation said she was proceeding without a record of the oral proceedings, and she had not completed the steps required by California Rules of Court, rule 8.137. Consequently, the court lacked evidence of who testified, what the testimony concerned, and what findings or rulings the superior court made. That deficiency prevented review of both improper service and insufficient evidence. The limited available record also did not suggest a service error: the process server averred personal service seven days before the hearing, and N.W. admitted being present at that address as her mother's caretaker. The court presumed the trial court knew and correctly applied the law absent a contrary showing.
N.W.'s evidentiary challenge failed for the same record-based reason. She supplied most written submissions but only the first page of E.Z.'s nine-page temporary-restraining-order request and no record of the hearings. Without testimony or its substance, the appellate court could not assess whether the evidence supported the order. It therefore affirmed the order granting the restraining order and directed the parties to bear their own appellate costs.
Key Takeaways
- An appellant challenging a domestic violence restraining order must provide an adequate record of relevant oral proceedings when the challenge depends on testimony or evidentiary findings.
- A proposed settled statement included in an appendix does not substitute for completing the procedures required to obtain a settled statement under rule 8.137.
- The court found personal service sufficient on the limited record because service occurred seven days before the hearing and N.W. admitted being present at the service address.
- Although expiration of the one-year order made the appeal apparently moot, the court exercised its discretion to reach and reject N.W.'s arguments.
- The appellate court affirmed without deciding that the hearing evidence independently established abuse; the missing record precluded meaningful sufficiency review.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates how an incomplete appellate record can determine a domestic violence restraining order appeal before the merits of service or evidentiary objections can be examined. It applies the presumption of correctness and the appellant's burden to demonstrate reversible error, rather than treating written motions and partial hearing documents as substitutes for the oral proceedings.
The opinion also distinguishes mootness from the ability to review the challenged ruling. The court could have dismissed after the order expired but chose to decide the appeal, ultimately affirming because N.W. had not supplied the material needed to evaluate her claims.