Verde v. Hernandez CA2/7, B306724

On March 2, 2020 Lissy Berrios Verde filed for a domestic violence restraining order (DVRO) against Ricardo Hernandez, alleging threatening text messages, prior physical abuse (Dec. 19, 2016), and threats to her 13‑year‑old son; a temporary restraining order issued the same day.
Verde submitted an August 19, 2019 text threatening violence and other messages alleging Hernandez would report her to social workers; she also alleged theft of a car key and vandalism to her vehicle.
Hernandez denied sending the threatening texts, claimed Verde made threats to him, and said he had over 1,000 pages of text messages showing civil communications but declined to present them at the hearing.
At the June 30, 2020 hearing both parties testified; the trial court found Verde credible, relied on her testimony and the text messages she submitted, and issued a five‑year DVRO.
The court granted Verde sole legal and physical custody of Hernandez’s six‑year‑old daughter and limited Hernandez to monitored visitation; Hernandez appealed, arguing the court abused its discretion by relying on unvalidated/false text evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by issuing a DVRO based on text messages	Verde: testimony and messages show threats, harassment, and ongoing conduct warranting protection	Hernandez: texts were not validated, not his, and court relied on false testimony	Court: No abuse of discretion; trial court found Verde credible and Hernandez failed to rebut evidence
Whether substantial evidence supported issuance of a DVRO under the DVPA	Verde: past physical abuse plus threatening/harassing messages satisfy DVPA (§§ 6203, 6320)	Hernandez: insufficient proof that messages came from him; no corroboration	Court: Substantial evidence (prior abuse, threatened harm to children, threatening texts, continuing harassment) supported the order
Whether the court erred by not requiring additional validation of physical‑evidence allegations (car key/window)	Verde: testimony and exhibit (photo of key) supported theft and harassment	Hernandez: court should have required Verde to validate the key and other claims	Court: Court permissibly relied on Verde’s credible testimony; no additional validation required

In re Marriage of Davila and Mejia, 29 Cal.App.5th 220 (Cal. Ct. App. 2018) (abuse‑of‑discretion standard for DVRO rulings)
Herriott v. Herriott, 33 Cal.App.5th 212 (Cal. Ct. App. 2019) (deference to trial court on credibility and DVRO factual findings)
In re Marriage of G., 11 Cal.App.5th 773 (Cal. Ct. App. 2017) (standards governing appellate review of discretionary family law orders)
Denham v. Superior Court, 2 Cal.3d 557 (Cal. 1970) (appellate review limits on discretionary rulings)
Sav‑On Drug Stores, Inc. v. Superior Court, 34 Cal.4th 319 (Cal. 2004) (one credible witness may suffice to prove fact)
Perez v. Torres‑Hernandez, 1 Cal.App.5th 389 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016) (unwanted calls/texts and persistent contact can constitute abuse under the DVPA)
Burquet v. Brumbaugh, 223 Cal.App.4th 1140 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014) (continued unwanted electronic contact supports protective order)