Filed 9/14/23 Marriage of Gan and Sun CA2/5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

In re Marriage of LIN GAN and 

FUXIN SUN.

 B322142

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No.

 21PDFL00236)

LIN GAN,

Respondent,

v.

FUXIN SUN,

Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of 

Los Angeles County, Sarah J. Heidel, Judge. Affirmed.

Fuxin Sun, in pro. per., for Appellant.

Lin Gan Sun, in pro. per., for Respondent.

___________________________
2

Appellant Fuxin Sun (Father) appeals from an order 

granting a request for a restraining order under the Domestic 

Violence Prevention Act (DVPA; Fam. Code, § 6200 et seq.) for 

the protection of respondent Lin Gan (Mother) and the parties’ 

minor child.

1 On appeal, Father contends: (1) the trial court 

erred by admitting photographs without verification, crossexamination, or argument; (2) the trial court erred by excluding 

the audio portion of his video recording; and (3) the trial court did 

not act in an impartial manner. We conclude the photographs 

were properly authenticated through Mother’s testimony and the 

trial court provided Father with ample opportunity for crossexamination and argument about the evidence. The trial court 

did not exclude the audio from Father’s videos, but rather, the 

audio portion failed to play due to technical difficulties and 

Father did not make alternate arrangements to provide the audio 

portion. After reviewing the record, we conclude the trial court 

properly balanced its duty to provide due process to Mother, a 

self-represented litigant in a proceeding under the DVPA, with 

its duty to act as an impartial arbiter. We find no abuse of 

discretion has been shown, and therefore, we affirm. 

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Mother and Father married and had a child together. They 

divorced in February 2022. On April 5, 2022, Mother, 

representing herself, filed a request for a domestic violence 

restraining order (DVRO) against Father for the protection of

herself and the child. The child was 10 years old at the time of 

1 All further statutory references are to the Family Code 

unless otherwise stated.
3

the filing. Mother declared that Father committed abuse in May 

2018, August 2019, February 2020, November 2020, and most 

recently, on April 3, 2022. She requested legal and physical 

custody, with no visitation for Father. Father also filed a request 

for a DVRO against Mother based on the April 3, 2022 incident. 

A hearing was held on the competing requests on June 6, 

2022. Mother represented herself, with the assistance of an 

interpreter. Father was represented by counsel, with the 

assistance of a different interpreter.

The trial court asked Mother a series of neutral questions 

to elicit her testimony, clarify the chronology of events, and 

understand the relevance of her evidence. Mother showed 

several photos to the trial court, which were not provided to 

Father prior to the hearing. Mother testified to the following 

facts. Mother and Father were watching television in the living 

room on May 6, 2018. She asked Father to turn down the 

volume. He became angry and choked her neck, such that she 

could not breathe. In response to the court’s questions about 

certain photos, Mother stated that she took the photos herself, 

the photos showed marks on her neck, and they accurately 

reflected how she looked on the day of the May 2018 incident.

Father’s counsel objected to the introduction of the photos on the 

ground that the photos could not be authenticated. The court 

overruled the objection.

On August 22, 2019, Mother and the child were eating at 

the table. Father smashed bowls, plates, and cups. Mother 

showed a photo of the broken dishes to the court. In response to 

the court’s questions, she stated that she took the photo and it 

accurately depicted how the counter looked on that day. She also 

showed a photo of a broken cup that she said Father had 
4

smashed on her head and a mark on her hand from a piece of a 

broken bowl. Father’s counsel again objected to admission of the 

photos on the basis that the photos could not be authenticated; 

the trial court overruled the objection.

On July 26, 2020, Mother asked Father to turn down the 

volume of his music because the child was doing homework in the 

living room. Mother went to the bedroom to rest. The child saw 

Father kick the door. Father entered the room, tore Mother’s 

shirt, and sexually assaulted her. Mother wanted him to stop, 

but he pressed hard on her arm and left a bruise. Several days 

after the incident, she took photos of the damaged door, the 

bruise on her arm, and her torn shirt. Father’s counsel raised the 

same objection to admission of these photos, which the court 

overruled.

On February 26, 2022, Father was very angry when Mother 

walked out of the house. He followed her to the street. When she 

tried to call a family member, he grabbed her phone, smashed it 

on the sidewalk, dragged her, and pushed her on the ground.

Father slapped her face, causing her eye to bleed. She took a 

photo of her eye.

In April 2022, Mother wanted to return to China because 

her father was ill. Father came to the home on April 3, 2022. He 

had not paid the full amount of child support owed to Mother

under the dissolution judgment, but he asked Mother to pay 

support to him. He said that he had a gun. He also said, “I will 

not allow you to go back to China. [¶] . . . [¶] You should be in 

fear of me. [¶] . . . [¶] I will not let you know what I’m going to 

do, but each day, you will live in misery.” He began to record a 

video of her with his phone. She did not want him to take a video 

of her and asked him to stop. Father wanted to leave, but she 
5

told him to delete the video and then he could go. He pushed her 

down on the sofa. In the struggle, she hurt her foot, broke her 

bracelet, and ripped her jacket. She took a photo of her foot that 

showed a small red dot. 

Father’s counsel raised the same objection, failure to 

authenticate, to admission of the photos of Mother’s eye and foot, 

which the court overruled. A police report dated June 2, 2022, 

was also admitted into evidence.

Father’s attorney cross-examined Mother about her 

testimony, including the incidents depicted in the photos. 

Father’s attorney elicited testimony from Father about the 

parties’ living arrangements and expenses. Father testified that 

on April 3, 2022, he was cooking dinner for Mother and the child.

Mother said she planned to stay in China for three months, while 

Father took care of the child in the United States. Because 

Father would be caring for the child, he thought Mother should 

pay child support to him. Father accused her of going to China 

for work and hiding income. Mother was angry and pushed his 

shoulder. Father used his phone to begin taking a video of 

Mother. Mother blocked the front door to prevent Father from 

leaving the house, grabbed at his clothes, and grabbed for his 

phone.

At the hearing, Father’s counsel had the videos from the 

April 3, 2022 incident on a flash drive and Father had the phone 

with him that he had used to record the videos. With prompting 

from the court, Father’s counsel asked Father questions to lay a 

foundation for admission of the videos. Mother objected to 

admission of the videos on the ground that California law 

prohibits taking video without consent. The court overruled her 

objection and viewed the videos. Father’s counsel asked the court 
6

to increase the volume, but the court explained that there was no 

audio.

Father stated that after he filmed the videos, he left the 

house and called the police. The police arrived and Father was 

arrested. The police collected one gun at the time of the arrest, 

and Father subsequently surrendered another gun. Father 

asserted that he had never verbally or physically abused Mother.

He denied committing any domestic violence on the dates 

previously mentioned by Mother.

The trial court provided Mother with an opportunity for 

cross-examination, but had to repeatedly direct Mother to ask 

questions rather than make statements. The court noted 

Father’s videos supported his testimony that Mother forced him 

to stay at the house on April 3, 2022. The court asked Mother 

several questions to understand her plan for childcare when she 

went to China. At one point, she said that the child’s school had 

a boarding program and she intended the child to stay there, but 

at another point, she said she thought Father could watch the 

child. 

The trial court provided Father’s counsel with an 

opportunity to examine Mother further, but counsel stated that 

he had no questions. In closing argument, Father’s counsel 

argued that the video clips supported Father’s statements, 

showed he had been trying to leave the house, and showed 

Mother falling over the sofa in the struggle to prevent him from 

leaving the house.

With respect to Father’s request for a restraining order, the 

trial court found Father had not met his burden to establish 

domestic violence. The court found the videos showed an 

unhappy situation, but it was not clear from the videos which 
7

party was the aggressor. It was very clear that Mother did not 

want Father to be filming her, which was a common reaction for 

people being filmed against their will; however, the evidence did 

not go far enough to establish that Mother was the aggressor in 

the situation. Mother presented substantial evidence supporting 

her allegations of past abuse, which tended to corroborate her 

statements about this incident. As a result, the trial court denied 

Father’s request for a restraining order. 

With respect to Mother’s request for a restraining order, 

the trial court noted that Mother had documented several past 

instances of abuse. Although Father categorically denied the 

incidents, he had not provided any explanation for the marks on 

Mother’s neck or the broken door that was kicked in. Father’s 

simple denials of past abuse were not specific enough. The trial 

court found Mother carried her burden with respect to her 

request for a restraining order.

The court noted that the child was present during at least 

some of the incidents, so the court had concerns about visitation 

and asked Father to provide further argument on the subject of 

visitation. Father’s counsel explained that Father was living in 

his car because he believed the restraining order to be temporary. 

Father had expected to move back into the house after the

restraining order hearing, but now that the court would be 

issuing a restraining order protecting mother, father would get 

an apartment. Father’s counsel argued that until Father had an 

apartment, he could meet with the child in a public area, such as 

a park.

The trial court denied visitation at present, due to the 

volatility of the situation. The court suggested video calls once a 

week, which was acceptable to Father, and the court instructed 
8

Father to file a request for an order modifying visitation once he 

had a place to live.

The trial court entered a DVRO for three years for the 

protection of Mother and the child. Father was ordered to move 

out of the home immediately and not harass, threaten, assault, 

annoy, or disturb the peace of Mother or the child. He was not to 

contact Mother or the child, except for brief, peaceful contact with 

Mother to communicate about the child for court-ordered visits.

He was also ordered to stay at least 100 yards away from them, 

including their home, Mother’s workplace and her car, and the 

child’s school, except to briefly and peacefully exchange the child 

for court-ordered visits. In addition, Father was ordered to enroll 

in a 26-week batterer intervention program and provide proof of 

completion to the court. The court entered a child custody and 

visitation order giving legal and physical custody to Mother, with 

15 minutes of weekly visitation for Father through video calls.

Father filed a timely notice of appeal from the restraining 

order against him.

2

2 Father has not appealed from the order denying his 

request for a restraining order. The record on appeal does not 

include Father’s request for a restraining order. The order being 

appealed that is attached to the case information statement is the 

DVRO. In his appellate briefs, Father contends that the DVRO 

should be reversed; he does not additionally contend that his 

request for a restraining order should have been granted.
9

DISCUSSION

Statutory Scheme and Standard of Review

Under the DVPA, the court may issue a restraining order 

“if an affidavit or testimony and any additional information 

provided to the court . . . shows, to the satisfaction of the court, 

reasonable proof of a past act or acts of abuse.” (§ 6300, subd. 

(a).) A DVRO may be issued to prevent, among other things, 

“striking, stalking, threatening, sexually assaulting, . . . 

harassing, telephoning, . . . contacting, either directly or 

indirectly, by mail or otherwise, coming within a specified 

distance of, or disturbing the peace of the other party.” (Fam. 

Code, § 6320, subd. (a).) The purpose of a domestic violence 

restraining order is not to punish past conduct, but “to prevent 

acts of domestic violence, abuse, and sexual abuse and to provide 

for a separation of the persons involved in the domestic violence 

for a period sufficient to enable these persons to seek a resolution 

of the causes of the violence.” (§ 6220; In re Marriage of F.M. & 

M.M. (2021) 65 Cal.App.5th 106, 117.)

On appeal, we review the denial or grant of a request for a 

DVRO under the abuse of discretion standard. (In re Marriage of 

Davila & Mejia (2018) 29 Cal.App.5th 220, 226.) “ ‘ “The 

appropriate test for abuse of discretion is whether the trial court 

exceeded the bounds of reason. When two or more inferences can 

reasonably be deduced from the facts, the reviewing court has no 

authority to substitute its decision for that of the trial court.” ’ ” 

(In re Marriage of G. (2017) 11 Cal.App.5th 773, 780.) Therefore, 

we accept all evidence supporting the trial court’s findings as true 
10

and resolve the conflict in favor of the judgment. (Curcio v. Pels 

(2020) 47 Cal.App.5th 1, 12.) If substantial evidence supports the 

trial court’s judgment, “reversal is not warranted even if facts 

exist that would support a contrary finding.” (Id.)

“Error on appeal must be affirmatively shown by the 

record, and ‘[w]e presume the trial court knew and properly 

applied the law absent evidence to the contrary.’ [Citation.]” 

(J.H. v. G.H. (2021) 63 Cal.App.5th 633, 644.)

Evidentiary Issues

Father contends the trial court erred by admitting the 

photos that Mother provided, because the photos were not 

verified or subject to cross-examination. This is incorrect. 

“Authentication of a writing, including a photograph, is 

required before it may be admitted in evidence. [Citations.] 

Authentication is to be determined by the trial court as a 

preliminary fact [citation] and is statutorily defined as ‘the 

introduction of evidence sufficient to sustain a finding that it is 

the writing that the proponent of the evidence claims it is’ or ‘the 

establishment of such facts by any other means provided by law’

([Evid. Code] § 1400).” (People v. Goldsmith (2014) 59 Cal.4th 

258, 266.)

“The foundation requires that there be sufficient evidence 

for a trier of fact to find that the writing is what it purports to be, 

i.e., that it is genuine for the purpose offered.” (People v. 

Goldsmith, supra, 59 Cal.4th at p. 267.) “A photograph or video 

recording is typically authenticated by showing it is a fair and 

accurate representation of the scene depicted. [Citations.] This 

foundation may, but need not be, supplied by the person taking 
11

the photograph or by a person who witnessed the event being 

recorded. [Citations.] It may be supplied by other witness 

testimony, circumstantial evidence, content and location. 

[Citations.] Authentication also may be established ‘by any other 

means provided by law’ [citation], including a statutory 

presumption.” (People v. Goldsmith, supra, 59 Cal.4th 

at pp. 267–268.)

In this case, the trial court asked Mother as to each 

photograph whether she took the photograph herself, when she 

took it, and what was depicted in the photograph. Mother 

verified that she took the photographs, and explained the 

contents. Mother’s testimony was sufficient to establish the 

foundation for admission of the photographs into evidence.

Although Father asserts that he was not provided an 

opportunity to cross-examine Mother about the evidence or 

defend against her allegations, the record reflects that Father’s 

counsel was given more than one opportunity to cross-examine 

Mother about the photographs, and Father was permitted to 

present his own testimony about the evidence. Father’s counsel 

was also given an opportunity to make a closing statement, 

through which Father could defend himself against Mother’s 

allegations of past abuse.

Father’s counsel did not object to the admission of the 

photos on any ground other than authentication, and neither 

Father nor his counsel requested a continuance to review and 

discuss the photos between them. In order to challenge the 

admission of evidence on appeal, a party must have made an 

objection in the trial court with the specific ground for the 

objection. (People v. Ramos (1997) 15 Cal.4th 1133, 1171.) We 

note Father was aware that Mother’s request for a DVRO 
12

claimed multiple incidents of abuse had occurred, including the 

month and year of each incident. No error has been shown with 

respect to admission of the photos or Father’s ability to contest 

their authenticity and import.

Father also contends the trial court abused its discretion by 

excluding the audio portion of the video recordings that he 

offered. Father asserts the audio would have shown that Mother 

falsely described the events on April 3, 2022. However, the trial 

court did not make any ruling to exclude the audio portion of the 

recordings from evidence; it is clear from the record that the 

audio simply did not play when the trial court viewed the videos 

using the thumb drive that Father provided. Upon learning that 

there was no functioning audio, Father’s counsel did not object to 

the trial court continuing to view the video without audio, nor did 

Father’s counsel offer to provide the court with the audio portion 

in another format, such as a different device to access the thumb 

drive, Father’s phone to play the original videos, or a transcript 

of the audio portion. Father’s counsel also did not make any offer 

of proof as to what the audio would have added that was not 

otherwise apparent. No error has been shown with respect to the 

videos.

Duty to Act Impartially

Father contends the trial court did not perform its duties in 

an impartial manner. He notes that the trial court asked Mother 

multiple detailed questions to guide her testimony, but never 

asked Father any substantive questions as a witness. Based 

upon our review of the record, we disagree with Father’s 

characterization of the proceedings.
13

Judges are required to perform the duties of their office 

impartially, competently, and diligently. (Nuño v. California 

State University, Bakersfield (2020) 47 Cal.App.5th 799, 810.) 

“Impartiality means the absence of bias or prejudice in favor of, 

or against, particular parties or classes of parties and the 

maintenance of an open mind in considering the issues 

presented.” (Ibid.)

Canon 3.B.(8) of the California Code of Judicial Ethics 

states: “A judge shall dispose of all judicial matters fairly, 

promptly, and efficiently. A judge shall manage the courtroom in 

a manner that provides all litigants the opportunity to have their 

matters fairly adjudicated in accordance with the law.” The 

advisory comment explains: “The obligation of a judge to dispose 

of matters promptly and efficiently must not take precedence 

over the judge’s obligation to dispose of the matters fairly and 

with patience. For example, when a litigant is self-represented, a 

judge has the discretion to take reasonable steps, appropriate 

under the circumstances and consistent with the law and the 

canons, to enable the litigant to be heard.” (Cal. Code Jud. 

Ethics, Advisory Com. com. foll. cannon 3.B.(8).) It is ethical for 

judges to “explain court procedures, inform a party of the process

for securing witnesses, and even inform a party of missing 

elements of proof or other legal requirements, so long as the court 

remains impartial and provides such guidance to all parties, 

whether or not they are represented. A court needs to be very 

careful, however, when engaging in such activities to avoid 

becoming an advocate and stepping out of the judicial role.”

(Rothman, et al., Cal. Judicial Conduct Handbook (4th ed. 2017) 

§ 2:28, pp. 99–100.)
14

California courts have concluded that to provide due 

process to unrepresented litigants in proceedings brought under 

the DVPA, a judge is required to play a more active role in 

developing the facts before determining whether to issue a 

DVRO. (Ross v. Figueroa (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 856, 861 

(Ross).) Due process requires “the right to be heard in a 

meaningful manner.” (In re James Q. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 255, 

265.) The role of the judge in a domestic violence proceeding is 

different than a purely adversarial matter where the parties are 

represented by skilled and knowledgeable counsel. (In re 

Marriage of D.S. & A.S. (2023) 87 Cal.App.5th 926, 935.) “ ‘In a 

purely adversarial setting it is reasonable for the judge to sit 

back and expect a party’s lawyer to know about and either assert 

or by silence forfeit even the most fundamental of the party’s 

constitutional and statutory procedural rights. But not so in a 

judicial forum, such as this domestic violence court, which can 

expect most of those appearing before the court to be 

unrepresented.’ [Citation.]” (In re Marriage of D.S. & A.S., 

supra, 87 Cal.App.5th at p. 935.)

The high percentage of self-represented parties in domestic 

violence matters, many of whom do not speak English, places a 

special burden on judges who “cannot rely on the propria persona 

litigants to know each of the procedural steps, to raise objections, 

to ask all the relevant questions of witnesses, and to otherwise 

protect their due process rights.” (Ross, supra, 139 Cal.App.4th 

at p. 861; Gonzalez v. Munoz (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 413, 420.) 

“Our family courts are daily faced with the needs of selfrepresented litigants, the requirements of judicial neutrality, and 

the need for judicial efficiency. These interests require delicate 

balancing, but allowance must be made for the status of the 
15

parties appearing before the court. In a contested restraining 

order hearing, the trial court is tasked with protecting the 

fundamental due process rights of self-represented litigants both 

seeking a restraining order or defending against the request, 

even when they do not fully understand what those rights 

encompass.” (In re Marriage of D.S. & A.S., supra, 87 

Cal.App.5th at p. 934.)

Father contends that the trial court treated him as a mere 

audience member and gave him no opportunity to make any 

statements or defend himself. This is incorrect. It is true that 

the trial court asked Mother several questions to elicit relevant 

testimony, avoid inefficiency, and guide her to lay the foundation 

for evidence that she wished to introduce. The court’s 

questioning was necessary, because Mother was not represented 

by counsel and already relying on the assistance of an interpreter 

to understand the proceedings. The trial court was not required 

to ask similar questions of Father directly, as Father’s counsel 

elicited Father’s testimony and conducted cross-examination 

without straying into irrelevant issues. We note that although 

the court did not ask Father questions directly, the court 

prompted Father’s counsel to ask certain questions necessary to 

present Father’s case, such as laying a foundation for the videos. 

In addition, the trial court asked Father’s counsel several 

questions to understand Father’s living situation. Contrary to 

Father’s characterization of the trial court as biased, the court 

asked Mother several questions that focused on contradictions in 

her testimony and the court noted that Father’s video supported 

his testimony that Mother had refused to let Father leave the 

house. 
16

We conclude from our review of the record that the trial 

court’s treatment of the parties was balanced and fair in light of 

the court’s duty to elicit testimony to provide due process to 

Mother as an unrepresented party. The court’s questions were 

neutral, and the court provided Father with opportunities to 

testify, cross-examine Mother, and make a closing statement. No 

error has been shown.3

3 Father’s motion filed with this court on August 30, 2023, 

regarding improper service of Mother’s appellate brief, is denied. 

Even assuming service was improper, and disregarding Mother’s 

brief in its entirety, our opinion would be the same. Based on the 

appellate record, Father failed to meet his burden to show trial 

court error. Father also fails to provide any support for the 

additional, punitive relief sought in his motion, or justify the 

need for a hearing on the motion; accordingly, his requests are 

denied.
17

DISPOSITION

The June 6, 2022 order granting the request for a 

restraining order against appellant Fuxin Sun is affirmed. 

Respondent Lin Gan is awarded her costs on appeal.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

MOOR, J.

We concur:

RUBIN, P. J.

ROTHSCHILD, J.*

* Presiding Justice of the Court of Appeal, Second Appellate 

District, Division One, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to 

article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.