Court Opinion

ID: 9890615
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-13 18:04:15.887203+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:25:38.446278
License: Public Domain

Filed 10/13/23 S.B. v. J.B. 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                 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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 APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                                 DIVISION ONE

                                         STATE OF CALIFORNIA

S.B.,                                                                D081486

         Respondent,

         v.                                                          (Super. Ct. No. 19FL004823C)

J.B.,

         Appellant.

         APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County,
Jose S. Castillo, Judge. Affirmed.
         J.B., in pro. per., for Appellant.
         S.B., in pro. per., for Respondent.
         J.B. appeals from a domestic violence restraining order (DVRO). J.B.
argues there is no evidence to support S.B.’s allegations of abuse. He also
contends evidence shows S.B.’s claims were false and retaliatory. We
conclude substantial evidence supports the order and therefore affirm.
                      FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
         On July 15, 2022, S.B. filed a request for a DVRO against J.B. to
protect herself, their three-year-old daughter A.B., and her three other minor
children, S.S., A.S., and K.S. S.B. stated J.B. had been abusing her for years,
including when she was pregnant with A.B. He also told her multiple times
that he would kill her.
      In her DVRO request, S.B. explained the last time J.B. physically and
verbally abused her was on “the 10th.” He called her a “piece of s**t”, pushed
her, and grabbed A.B. by the arm. He then pointed a gun at them and
“cocked the gun and told me he will blow my brains out.” A.M. asked “ ‘your
[sic] going to kill us daddy.’ ” S.B. told J.B., “ ‘so your [sic] just going to kill
me in front of our daughter and with [K.S.] in the living room. If you are
going to kill me do it without my kids here.” According to S.B., J.B. laughed,
“put the gun up,” then proceeded to push and hit her, which caused her to fall
and sustain a bruise on her leg. She went in the bathroom and J.B. walked
in and started choking her, then bent her neck down to try to drown her
under the bathtub faucet. He then pushed her against the wall and told her
he will kill her and did not care if she called the police because he had
nothing to lose.
      J.B. had also verbally and physically abused K.S. S.B. described the
last incident that occurred when she was at work and received a call from
K.S. saying J.B. grabbed her arm, would not let it go, and pulled her hair.
      S.B.’s mother called the police after one incident when J.B. was
pushing her and S.B. S.B. explained she did not seek a DVRO in the past
because she “was scared and in love and grew up not to tell.” She stated she
is tired of living in fear not knowing if J.B. is going to kill her or A.B. She
hoped that by finally standing up for her children and herself, J.B. would not
take action and kill her as he had been saying he would.
      In response, J.B. asserted the allegations were false, S.B. was not
afraid of him, and she never has been. Instead, S.B. has anger issues and

                                           2
had been violent toward him with A.B. present. He claimed S.B. was seeking
the DVRO in retaliation to his request for custody of A.B. that he filed two
days prior. J.B. asserted he was doing his best to be a good father to A.B., he
took parenting classes, anger management classes, and courses to improve
his career opportunities. He attached visitation observation reports from
California Family Visitation (CFV) to show his positive interactions with his
daughter A.B.
      The trial court held a hearing on December 5, 2022. There was no
court reporter present. The minute order indicates S.B. and J.B. were both
present and represented by counsel. S.B. testified and admitted one exhibit,

identified as “Text messages from respondent.”1 J.B. also testified. At the
close of evidence, the minute order states: “The court finds the protected
party has met her burden by a preponderance of the evidence to show that an
act of abuse has occurred within the meaning of the Domestic Violence
Prevention Act. [¶] The court finds [S.B.’s] testimony to be credible
regarding the incidents of abuse.” The court issued a formal order after
hearing granting a three-year DVRO against J.B. and naming A.B., S.S.,
A.S., and K.S. as additional protected people.
      J.B. filed a notice of appeal and requested a settled statement of the
unreported hearing under rule 8.137 of the California Rules of Court. The
trial court issued a settled statement, which summarizes the parties’
testimony as follows: “At the beginning of the hearing, Petitioner and
Respondent were sworn-in, both indicated that the facts included in their
respective declarations—as set forth in the request and response—were true,
accurate, correct. . . . Petitioner and Respondent then testified and provided
additional details than those included in their respective declarations.

1     This exhibit is not in the appellate record.
                                       3
However, the court does not have independent recollection of the additional
testimony/details.” Regarding the court’s findings, the settled statement
states: “After having reviewed the respective declarations of both parties,
hearing their respective testimony and reviewing the exhibit, the Court
determined the Petitioner met her burden by a preponderance of the evidence
to show that an act of abuse has occurred within the meaning of the Domestic
Violence Prevention Act. [¶] The court found Petitioner’s testimony to be
credible regarding the incidents of abuse.”
                                 DISCUSSION
      J.B. argues there is no substantial evidence to support the trial court’s
finding of abuse. (See Fam. Code, § 6203 [defining “abuse”]; § 6211 [defining
“domestic violence” to include abuse perpetrated against a person with whom
the respondent has had a child]; § 6300 [authorizing DVRO based on proof of
past abuse].) He asserts S.B. relied only on her own testimony and did not
provide a police report, photo, medical document, or credible witness to
substantiate her allegations. And as he did below, he claims S.B. sought the
restraining order in retaliation for his filing a custody action as to A.B. He
also contends evidence showed S.B.’s claims were false. Specifically, he
asserts the CFV visitation reports of his visits with A.B. are positive and

                                       4
show no signs of abuse.2 Upon our review of the record, we conclude
substantial evidence supports the trial court’s finding of abuse and therefore
affirm the court’s order.
      We review a grant of injunctive relief for abuse of discretion. (Gonzalez
v. Munoz (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 413, 420 [abuse of discretion standard
applies to a grant or denial of a DVRO].) In our review of the trial court’s
factual findings, we look to whether substantial evidence supports the trial
court’s order. (In re Marriage of G. (2017) 11 Cal.App.5th 773, 780.) As a
trier of fact, the trial judge is required to reject evidence only when it is
“inherently improbable or incredible, i.e., ‘unbelievable per se,’ physically
impossible or ‘wholly unacceptable to reasonable minds.’ [Citations.]” (Lenk
v. Total-Western, Inc. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 959, 968, internal quotation.)
“[W]e defer to the trier of fact on issues of credibility.” (Ibid.; see also In re
Marriage of Balcof (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 1509, 1531.) In determining
whether substantial evidence supports the court’s order, we view the
evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party. (In re Marriage
of Drake (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 1139, 1151.)
      According to the settled statement, S.B. and J.B. both testified that the
facts in their respective filings were true, accurate, and correct. The trial

2      J.B. also sought to augment the record on appeal with text messages
from July 10, 2022, which he contends shows he was not with S.B. and A.B.
that day, contrary to S.B.’s allegation that that is when the last incident of
abuse occurred. However, J.B.’s motion to augment states his attorney below
chose not to present the text messages to the trial court and J.B. has made no
showing they were otherwise considered below. Based on our review of the
appellate record, there is no indication these are the same text messages that
S.B.’s attorney admitted into evidence. The trial court’s orders must be
reviewed based solely on the evidence that was before it at the time they were
made. (In re V.M. (2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 245, 253, fn. 1.) As such, we deny
J.B.’s motion to augment.
                                          5
court found S.B.’s testimony to be credible. Nothing more is required to
sustain the trial court’s finding of abuse. If believed by the trial court, the
testimony of a single witness is sufficient evidence for a finding of abuse and
the issuance of a DVRO. (See, e.g., Ashby v. Ashby (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th
491, 517, citing Sabbah v. Sabbah (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 818, 823; see also
In re Marriage of Mix (1975) 14 Cal.3d 604, 614 [testimony of single witness,
even the party herself, may be sufficient].) J.B.’s argument that S.B. acted in
retaliation goes to her credibility, and as an appellate court, “we do not
second-guess the calls the trial court made regarding credibility.” (Barboni v.
Tuomi (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 340, 349.)
                                 DISPOSITION
      The order is affirmed. Respondent shall recover her costs on appeal.

                                                                      KELETY, J.

      WE CONCUR:

      DATO, Acting P. J.

      DO, J.

                                        6