Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
On April 18, 2025, C.O.M. (Wife) applied for a domestic violence restraining order against her husband, G.M. (Husband), requesting a stay-away order, a move-out order, sole possession of three dogs, and an order keeping Husband 100 yards from the dogs. In her declaration, Wife asserted that on April 17, 2025, Husband demanded sexual intercourse and, when she declined, tried to take her telephone and was verbally abusive. The family court issued a temporary restraining order.
At the June 16, 2025 hearing on a permanent restraining order, Wife testified to alleged acts of abuse spanning 2021 to 2025, including that Husband grabbed her throat, forced her to engage in anal intercourse, threw her to the ground causing a bruise, shoved her into a car door, and physically abused two of the couple's dogs. Husband also testified, but the record contains no summary of his testimony. The family court found Husband to be the dominant aggressor, granted Wife's request for a five-year DVRO with a move-out order, and denied Husband's own request for a restraining order.
Husband appealed, raising contentions pertaining to insufficient evidence, due process violations, judicial bias, and errors admitting and excluding evidence. The record on appeal consisted of a clerk's transcript and a certified settled statement, which became a central issue because the family court certified a modified settled statement from September 23, 2025, rather than Husband's later Second Amended Proposed Settled Statement.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal affirmed the DVRO. Addressing Husband's substantial evidence challenge, the court held that evidence of a 'present credible threat' is not a requirement for issuing a DVRO in California; Family Code section 6300 requires only reasonable proof of a past act or acts of abuse. The court therefore declined to examine whether evidence supported such a finding and held the family court did not err by failing to make one.
The court rejected Husband's evidentiary and due process challenges largely on record grounds. Because the certified settled statement did not include information about credibility evidence having been excluded, the court could not review Husband's claim that the family court wrongly excluded evidence of Wife's prior unsubstantiated abuse claims, and it could not evaluate his right-to-present-a-defense claim because the record did not reveal what evidence, if any, was excluded. The lack of a court reporter did not require reversal because Riverside County no longer provides court reporters for family law cases and Husband was responsible for arranging one. The court also found no due process violation regarding discovery: formal discovery is not permitted in DVRO proceedings absent a good-cause showing, and Husband declined the court's offer of a continuance to exchange evidence.
The court rejected Husband's remaining contentions. It held the family court did not err by admitting an edited video because Evidence Code section 356 allowed Husband to introduce the remainder, and Wife's uncorroborated testimony was sufficient under section 6300, which does not require corroboration. It found no judicial bias, explaining that adverse rulings alone do not establish bias, and it declined to address the community property argument regarding the move-out order because the record was inadequate to determine whether the house was community property. Having found no errors, the court rejected cumulative error claims and affirmed the DVRO, awarding Wife her costs on appeal.
Key Takeaways
- A domestic violence restraining order in California requires only reasonable proof of a past act or acts of abuse, not evidence of a present credible threat of future harm.
- An appellant's failure to provide an adequate record, including a properly certified settled statement, will typically result in forfeiture of claims that depend on what transpired at trial.
- Formal discovery under the Civil Discovery Act is not permitted in DVRO proceedings unless the family court grants a discovery request upon a showing of good cause.
- The testimony of the person seeking protection, standing alone and without corroboration, can be sufficient evidence to support issuance of a DVRO.
- A trial court's numerous rulings against a party, even if erroneous, do not establish judicial bias, particularly when those rulings are subject to appellate review.
Why It Matters
This unpublished decision reinforces well-established California law that the statutory standard for issuing a DVRO focuses on past abuse rather than future threats, and it underscores the critical importance of the appellate record in domestic violence appeals. Self-represented litigants in particular face significant hurdles when the record lacks a reporter's transcript or a properly certified settled statement, as claims of evidentiary error and due process violations become unreviewable.
The opinion also illustrates the procedural framework governing DVRO proceedings, including the limited availability of formal discovery, the sufficiency of uncorroborated testimony, and the standards for mutual restraining orders and primary aggressor findings under Family Code section 6305.