Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
In 2021, Maria Broady petitioned for dissolution of her marriage to Richard Broady in San Diego County family court. In April 2023, Maria sought a domestic violence restraining order, asserting that Richard had physically assaulted her, verbally and mentally abused her, sent abusive text messages, and refused to leave the home she owned. After a hearing, the court issued a two-year restraining order on July 19, 2023, prohibiting Richard from contacting or harassing Maria, ordering him to move out, precluding coercive control, and requiring him to stay at least 100 yards from Maria and her dog.
On July 1, 2025, Maria requested permanent renewal, stating that Richard had violated the existing order countless times and that she continued to feel unsafe at home, at work, and in her community. She described ongoing harassment over the two years, including stalking her and a friend walking her dog, sending threatening correspondence, and suspected vandalism of her home and car. At the July 17, 2025 hearing, both parties testified. Maria said Richard came within 100 yards of her and her home at least twice and caused intimate photographs of her to be delivered to her, one bearing a handwritten note reading, 'I have so much more recordings and pictures.' She testified she feared Richard and suffered substantial emotional distress. Richard admitted following the dog walker to within 100 yards of Maria's home and admitted having Maria served with the documents and photographs.
The trial court granted permanent renewal, finding by a preponderance of the evidence that Maria entertained a reasonable apprehension of future abuse, that a reasonable person in the same circumstances would share that apprehension unless the order was renewed, that her apprehension was genuine and reasonable, and that the facts supporting the initial order supported renewal. The court also found Richard's testimony not credible. The permanent restraining order issued on July 17, 2025, and Richard filed a timely notice of appeal. The hearing was not transcribed, but Richard obtained a settled statement under California Rules of Court, rule 8.137, which was included in the appellate record.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal affirmed. Richard failed to meet his burden on appeal to set forth a cognizable legal argument demonstrating how the trial court erred, and he failed to provide an adequate record to permit meaningful appellate review. He listed five asserted errors—that the evidence did not establish a reasonable apprehension of future abuse, that the evidence was speculative, that threats or acts of violence were required, that the court focused on past conduct rather than future likelihood, and that a permanent order was excessive—but he did so without citation to the record or sufficient legal authority, and his statement of facts contained no record citations.
The court explained that a lower court's order is presumed correct on appeal, and the appellant bears the burden of affirmatively showing prejudicial error, ensuring an adequate record exists for review, and presenting argument and authority on each point or having the point deemed abandoned. An appellate court is not required to consider points not adequately presented, and self-represented litigants are held to the same standards as attorneys. Because Richard offered only bald accusations of error without argument or explanation, the court resolved the appeal against him.
The court additionally observed that the record before it—including the settled statement Richard prepared and his own admissions of harassing behavior during the initial order—supported the trial court's findings and the imposition of a permanent restraining order. Because appellate courts do not reweigh evidence or reassess witness credibility, Richard had not shown any error in the family court's decision to grant Maria's renewal request.
Key Takeaways
- An appellant challenging a domestic violence restraining order renewal must present a cognizable legal argument supported by record citations and authority; bare assertions of error are treated as abandoned.
- Self-represented litigants are held to the same appellate standards as attorneys, including the burden to affirmatively demonstrate prejudicial error and to ensure an adequate record for review.
- A settled statement under California Rules of Court, rule 8.137 can substitute for a missing reporter's transcript when a family law hearing was not transcribed.
- A trial court's credibility findings and its determination that a protected party has a genuine and reasonable apprehension of future abuse will not be reweighed on appeal.
- A party's own admissions of conduct violating an existing restraining order can supply record support for permanently renewing that order.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates how appellate forfeiture doctrines operate in family law appeals, particularly where a self-represented party challenges a domestic violence restraining order without record citations or developed legal argument. It confirms that the presumption of correctness and the adequate-record requirement apply with full force in DVRO renewal appeals, and that pro per status does not relax those requirements.
The case also underscores the practical importance of the settled statement procedure under California Rules of Court, rule 8.137, when a family law hearing is not transcribed, and shows that an appellant's own admissions within that record can independently support affirmance of a permanent restraining order.