Court Opinion

ID: 9839918
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-14 17:05:25.389767+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:42:06.261890
License: Public Domain

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   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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                                   B322142
 FUXIN SUN.
                                                                 (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.

                              ___________________________
      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, cross-
examination, 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 cross-
examination 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.

                                  2
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

                                 3
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

                                4
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

                                5
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

                                 6
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

                                 7
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.

                                 8
                           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

                                  9
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

                                  10
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

                               11
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.

                                12
       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.)

                                13
       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 self-
represented 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

                                14
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.

                                15
       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.

                                16
                         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.

                               17