B.O. v. V.C. CA4/1
D082964
Cal. Ct. App.May 22, 2025Background
- B.O. (Father) and V.C. (Mother) share two children but were never married. After their separation, the parties engaged in contentious family court litigation.
- Mother sought a domestic violence restraining order (DVRO) against Father based on an October 2021 incident; she initially received a temporary DVRO but then dismissed her petition and resumed her relationship with Father.
- Father later sought (and was granted) a two-year DVRO against Mother for a different incident.
- Nearly two years after the original incident, Mother reapplied for a DVRO based on the same October 2021 event, claiming continued fear for her safety.
- After a two-day evidentiary hearing with both parties represented by counsel, the trial court denied Mother’s request, finding her claims lacked credibility and were not supported by substantial evidence.
- Mother appealed the denial of the DVRO and, possibly, certain custody and visitation orders, arguing trial procedure errors and sufficiency of evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Denial of DVRO | Mother: Evidence insufficiently considered; claims of abuse should lead to DVRO | Father: Incident was self-defense, not abuse | Denial affirmed; no abuse found |
| Sufficiency of Evidence | Mother: Court’s findings not supported; evidence one-sided | Father: Court credited his version over Mother's | Court found findings supported by evidence |
| Trial Procedure Error | Mother: Lack of court reporter for part of trial denied due process | Father: Responsibility for reporter was parties’ | No reversible error; not court's fault |
| Custody/Visitation Orders | Mother: Unclear, generally disagreed with orders | Father: Not addressed specifically | Orders affirmed; no error shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Jameson v. Desta, 5 Cal.5th 594 (Cal. 2018) (decision of trial court presumed correct; appellant must affirmatively show error)
- Foreman & Clark Corp. v. Fallon, 3 Cal.3d 875 (Cal. 1971) (appellants must provide a record with all relevant evidence)
- Pulver v. Avco Financial Services, 182 Cal.App.3d 622 (Cal. Ct. App. 1986) (appellate courts disregard facts not in the record)
- Nwosu v. Uba, 122 Cal.App.4th 1229 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004) (appellate rules apply equally to pro se litigants)