Filed 1/22/14 Cong v. Hawkins CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. COURT OF APPAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SHANELLE DANAE CONG, Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. APRIL HAWKINS, Defendant and Appellant. D062819

(Super. Ct. No. 37-2012-00095552- CU-HR-CTL)

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Sa n Diego County, Theodore M. Weathers, Judge. Affirmed.

April Hawkins, in pro. pe r., for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. Defendant and appellant April Hawkins, acting in propria persona, appeals from an order of the trial court denying her motio n to modify an exis ting civil harassment restraining order. On appeal, she vigorously disputes the allegati ons of wrongdoing set forth in the applicant's request for the restraining order.2 Although Hawkins has provided us with a reporter's transcript of one of the hearings on her motion to modify, she has not provided a reporter's transcript of the initial hearing on the request for a restraining order or complete transcripts of what occurred at a later hearing on her motion to modify. Given this limited record, we must presume that Hawkins was given an adequate opportunity to dispute the accusations made against her, that entry of the restrain ing order in the first instance was proper and that the trial court acted properly in denying her motion to modify. Accordingly, we affirm the order denying Hawkins's motion to modify.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 1 On April 16, 2012, Sh anelle Cong filed a request for a civil harassment restraining order against Hawkins. In her request, Cong stated Hawkins wa s a woman who dated Cong's husband while Cong and her husband we re separated. According to Cong, she and her husband ha d reconciled. Cong further stated that Hawkins was "constantly calling leaving messages. Coming to our house unexpec[te d]ly in the early mornings with people to fight us. Breaking our windows intimidating our kids. Th reat[en]ing to fight us and doing stuff to our property. We can't sleep th rough the night. We had to move due to her violence and harassing us every time we go outside we have to worry about our cars being vand[a]lized. She is showing signs of un stableness. Putting my kids in danger by breaking windows in our home."
1 We have augmented the record with the s uperior court file. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.155(a).)3 A temporary restraining order was issu ed on April 16, 2012, preventing Hawkins from having contact with Cong, her husband Ca rlos and their three children. The order also prohibited Hawkins from owni ng or possessing any firearms. On May 7, 2012, a hearing on Cong's re quest that the restraining order be extended was held. Cong and Hawkins both tes tified. Although th e court extended the restraining order for three years, the court de nied Cong's request that Carlos be included as a protected person under the extended order. The record shows that the reconciliation between Cong and her husband was short-lived. Although the trial court's unwillin gness to include Carlos as a protected person under the extended order suggests that as early as May 7, 2012, Hawkins and Carlos had renewed their relatio nship, any doubt about the stat us of their relationship was resolved on September 5, 2012 . On that date, Hawkins f iled a document styled as an appeal from the restraining orde r in which she denied that she had ever subjected Cong or her children to any harassment. Hawkins further stated that she and Carlos Cong were living together, that the Congs were going th rough a divorce and that the restraining order made it difficult for Carlos Cong to exercise his weekend visitati on rights with his two children. The appeal was supported by a stat ement from Carlos Cong in which he asked the trial court to provide relief from the restra ining order so that he and Hawkins could go forward with their relationship. A hearing on Hawkins's appeal, which the trial court treated as a motion to modify, was initially set for September 13, 2012. Hawkins has pr ovided us with a4 reporter's transcript of the September 13 hear ing. It shows that Hawkins appeared, but Cong did not. The transcript also shows th e trial court apparently believed the hearing had been set to determine whether the in itial temporary restrain ing order would be extended. 2 In light of this apparent misunders tanding, the trial court initially advised Hawkins that Cong's case had been dismissed. However, at some point shortly after Ha wkins had left the courthouse, the trial court discovered its error and, according to Hawkins's brief, a court employee called her and told her that the judge made a mistake a nd the restraining order was still in effect. The minute order the trial court filed followi ng the September 13 hearing is consistent with this aspect of Hawkins's brief. The mi nute order states that Hawkins was present, that Cong was not, that the matter was taken off calendar and that, on its own motion, the trial court continued the ma tter to October 9, 2012. On October 9, 2012, the court hear d Hawkins's request for relief from the restraining order. Hawkins appeared at the hearing; again, Cong failed to appear. The trial court denied what it interpreted as Hawkin s's request to modify the restraining order. The trial court advised Hawkins to file a notice of appeal and directed Carlos Cong to file appropriate paperwork in the family court.

2 The trial court stated: "In other word s, you were served with a temporary restraining order and today was the date and time set for a hearing to determine whether or not that order would be permanent, in other words, last for longer th an a couple weeks. The petitioner has the burden. Th e lady that served you in this case has the burden. She's decided not to show up. So the case goes away. So the temporary restraining order is gone and there's no hearing set to determine wh ether or not there should be an order. In the event she wants to pursue this further again, she'd have to start all over again."5 Hawkins filed a timely notice of app eal from the order denying her motion to modify the restraining order and an opening br ief. Cong did not file a respondent's brief.
DISCUSSION On appeal, Hawkins again contests Cong 's allegations of any wrongdoing on her part. Hawkins states that she and Carlos C ong now have a newborn child, that she has no reason to put his children in any danger and th at the restraining orde r is interfering with her ability to move forward with her life with Carlos Cong. The principal hurdle Hawkins faces in a ttacking the order denying her motion to modify is her failure to provide us with an adequate record. A lthough she requested a reporter's transcript of the September 13, 2012 hearing on her motion to modify, the record contains no reporter's transcript of the May 7, 2012 hearing at which the restraining order was extended for three years and no reporter's transcript of the October 10, 2012 hearing at which her motion to modify the restraining order was denied. "It is well settled, of course, that a part y challenging a judgmen t [or order] has the burden of showing reversible erro r by an adequate record." ( Ballard v. Uribe (1986) 41 Cal.3d 564, 574.) "'A judgment or order of the lower court is presumed correct . All intendments and presumptions are indulged to support it on matters as to which the record is silent . . . .' [Citation.]" ( Rossiter v. Benoit (1979) 88 Cal.App.3d 706, 712.) In the absence of a proper record on appeal, the judgment is presumed correct and must be affirmed. ( Maria P. v. Riles (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1281, 1295-1296.) A proper record includes a reporter's transcript or settled stat ement of any hearing leading to the order6 being challenged on appeal. (See Null v. City of Los Angeles (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 1528, 1532; Berg v. Investors Real Estate Loan Co. (1962) 207 Cal.App.2d 808, 817- 818; Utz v. Aureguy (1952) 109 Cal.App.2d 803, 806-807.) Without a proper record, we can neither dete rmine what findings, if any, the trial court made, nor evaluate its reasoning, in co nnection with its granting of the restraining order or later denial of Hawkins's moti on to modify the restraining order. (See Ballard v. Uribe , supra , 41 Cal.3d at pp. 574-575 ["It is well settled, of course, that a party challenging a judgment [or order] has the bu rden of showing reve rsible error by an adequate record" and "we have no occasion to consider furthe r the merits" of the appeal when a party fails to do so].) In particular, here we have no ability to review what facts the trial court considered in determining that Cong's accusations were credible and that her need for protection outweighed the burd en the order imposed on Hawkins and her relationship with Carlos.
DISPOSITION The order is affirmed. BENKE, Acting P. J. WE CONCUR:

HALLER, J.

McDONALD, J.