Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
C.M., identified in the opinion as Wife, applied on April 18, 2025, for a domestic violence restraining order against her husband, G.M. She requested stay-away and move-out orders and protections concerning the couple's three dogs. Her declaration described an April 17 confrontation in which Husband demanded sexual intercourse, tried to take her telephone after she declined, and was verbally abusive. The Riverside County Superior Court issued a temporary restraining order and held the permanent-order hearing on June 16, 2025.
Husband filed his own DVRO and property-control request on April 24, 2025, and both parties' requests were heard together on June 16, 2025. Wife testified about the April incident and earlier alleged physical and sexual abuse occurring from 2021 through 2025, as well as abuse of two dogs. Husband testified that he did not intend to harm Wife or law enforcement and asked the court to obtain police body-camera footage. The family court granted Wife a five-year DVRO, including a move-out order, and denied Husband's competing restraining-order request after finding insufficient evidence of domestic abuse by Wife against Husband but sufficient evidence of domestic abuse by Husband against Wife.
On appeal, Husband challenged the sufficiency of the evidence, evidentiary rulings, discovery procedures, the absence of a court reporter, the primary-aggressor finding, the move-out order, and alleged judicial bias. The appellate record consisted of a clerk's transcript and a certified settled statement. The family court certified the September 23, 2025 modified settled statement, not Husband's September 29, 2025 Second Amended Proposed Settled Statement, and the appellate court disregarded exhibits attached to Husband's opening brief that it could not locate in the clerk's transcript.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal affirmed. It rejected Husband's argument that a DVRO requires proof or a finding of a present credible threat of future abuse. California law instead requires reasonable proof of a past act or acts of abuse. The court also held that corroboration is unnecessary: Family Code section 6300, subdivision (a), permits an order based solely on the protected person's affidavit or testimony. Wife's testimony concerning incidents from 2021 through 2025 was probative of an ongoing pattern of abuse, so its admission was not error.
The due-process claims also failed. The family court did not exclude body-camera evidence Husband possessed; it declined his request to gather that evidence for him. Although the Supreme Court's decision in Family Violence Appellate Project v. Superior Court (2026) 20 Cal.5th 564 requires meaningful access to an official verbatim record for indigent litigants upon request, the appellate court found that Husband's request for a court reporter was filed on June 18, 2025, two days after the June 16, 2025 hearing, and that because Husband waited until after the hearing to request a court reporter, there was no error. His discovery argument failed because he declined an offered continuance and received a recess during which both sides could exchange evidence and witness lists.
Several other contentions could not be reviewed on the certified record. The settled statement did not describe exclusion of Husband's proposed credibility evidence, and the record did not establish ownership or community-property status of the residence, so the court concluded the family court did not err on those points. It also held that Husband's contention of judicial bias is based upon rulings that were unfavorable to him, and his contention fails. Husband forfeited his rehearing-stage challenge to omissions in the settled statement, and cumulative-error claims failed because the court found no errors, so there are no errors to cumulate. The DVRO was affirmed, and Respondent was awarded her costs on appeal under California Rules of Court, rule 8.278(a)(1).
Key Takeaways
- A California DVRO requires reasonable proof of past abuse, not separate evidence or a finding of a present credible threat of future harm.
- The testimony of the person seeking protection may support a DVRO without independent corroboration.
- A trial court's refusal to collect evidence for a party is not the same as excluding evidence the party was prepared to present.
- An indigent litigant must timely request an official verbatim record, and this appellant's post-hearing reporter request did not establish error.
- Uncertified proposed settled statements, unmatched brief exhibits, and missing ownership findings can prevent appellate review of factual and evidentiary claims.
Why It Matters
The opinion applies established DVRO standards to a broad set of challenges by a self-represented appellant. It underscores that uncorroborated testimony and evidence of an ongoing pattern of past abuse can support relief, while adverse rulings and generalized assertions of unfairness do not themselves demonstrate judicial bias or cumulative error.
The decision also illustrates the practical importance of building a usable appellate record. The court addressed the Supreme Court's recent guidance in Family Violence Appellate Project v. Superior Court on verbatim records for indigent litigants but resolved the issue through the timing of Husband's request. It separately treated his late challenge to the settled statement as forfeited and repeatedly declined to presume error where the certified record omitted the facts needed to evaluate his claims.