Filed 12/22/21 Thompson v. Thompson CA2/6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

REGAN THOMPSON,

 Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.

JASON THOMPSON,

 Defendant and Respondent.

2d Civ. No. B307398

(Super. Ct. No. D397065)

(Ventura County)

Regan Thompson appeals a domestic violence restraining 

order issued against her pursuant to the Domestic Violence 

Prevention Act. (Fam. Code, § 6200.)

1 She contends the order is 

not supported by the evidence and violates her state and federal 

due process rights. We affirm. 

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Regan Thompson and Jason Thompson married in 2007.

Both describe their relationship as tumultuous from the 

1 Unlabeled statutory references are to the Family Code.
2

beginning. The marriage’s decline began in October of 2019 when 

Regan2 flew to to Hawaii with their three young children while 

Jason was away on business. A few weeks later she took the 

children and drove away from the family home in the middle of 

the night. They were later found by Humboldt County 

authorities standing in the rain on the shoulder of a freeway. 

Regan had collided with another vehicle she had attempted to 

pass. She was travelling over 90 miles per hour at the time of the 

collision. Regan was arrested and the children were placed in 

foster care. Jason immediately retrieved the children and 

obtained a temporary restraining order (TRO) upon returning to 

Ventura County. 

A permanent domestic violence restraining order (DVRO) 

hearing was held on August 14, 2020. Jason testified about the 

Hawaii and Humboldt incidents and introduced some of Regan’s

texts and emails. Many berated him as a father and husband 

while others spoke of her superior intelligence and direct familial 

lineage to Native American and European royalty. Some implied 

she planned to kill herself. Jason also testified about the discord 

caused by Regan’s fixation on their children’s illnesses and 

whether mold in their home was to blame. 

Regan testified that Jason was an abusive workaholic who 

dismissed valid concerns about their children’s health. She 

recounted how she gathered the children and family dog then 

drove to Northern California to escape his abuse. She explained 

that the car accident occurred when she tried to outrun three 

trucks she believed were following her. She justified speeding as 

necessary to distance herself from the pursuers, and that her 

2 We refer to the parties by their first names to avoid 

confusion. No disrespect is intended.
3

attempted split-lane pass of two vehicles was necessary to 

prevent hydroplaning. 

DISCUSSION

The court may issue a DVRO for up to five years after a 

noticed hearing. (§ 6345, subd. (a).) It is the petitioner’s burden 

to establish abuse by a preponderance of the evidence. (Gdowski

v. Gdowski (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 128, 137.) “Abuse” may

include physical acts or any conduct listed under section 6320, 

such as “disturbing the peace of the other party.” (§§ 6203, 6320, 

subd. (a).) Disturbing the peace includes unwelcome contact by 

the restrained party that destroys the mental or emotional calm 

of the petitioner. (Burquet v. Brumbaugh (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 

1140, 1146.) We review the court’s DVRO ruling for abuse of 

discretion. (Id. at p. 1143.)

Regan contends the DVRO is not supported by sufficient 

evidence. The record shows otherwise. Jason presented evidence 

of profoundly disturbing acts and statements on the part of 

Regan over a period of many months. This included threats to 

harm herself in the children’s presence. The court afforded 

Regan considerable latitude at the hearing to present her version 

of events.3 In sum, her appeal challenges the finding that Jason’s 

evidence was more credible than hers. We defer as we must to 

the trial court’s factual determinations. (Schneer v. Llaurado

(2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 1276, 1287 [“The family court’s resolution 

of conflicts in the evidence and credibility assessments are 

binding on this court”].) 

3 Regan was unrepresented at the hearing. Substantial 

portions of her testimony were given to topics such as 

mitochondrial genetics, cryptology, vehicle recalls, drone killings, 

the COVID-19 outbreak, and economist John Nash’s FBI 

connections. 
4

CONCLUSION

The restraining order is affirmed. Jason shall recover his 

costs on appeal.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

PERREN, J.

We concur:

GILBERT, P. J.

YEGAN, J. 
5

William Liebmann, Judge

Superior Court County of Ventura

______________________________

Regan Thompson, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Nicholson Law, Lauren Nicholson; Ferguson Case Orr 

Paterson, Wendy Cole Lascher, for Defendant and Respondent.