Filed 6/9/20 Kent E. B. v. Whitehead CA2/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE

KENT E. B.,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

ANNA WHITEHEAD,

Defendant and Appellant.

B295770

(Los Angeles County

Super. Ct.

No. 18STRO08913)

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Laura Hymowitz, Commissioner. Affirmed.

Anthony S. Barilari for Defendant and Appellant.

Richardson│Ober│DeNichilo, Kelly G. Richardson and Daniel C. Heaton for Plaintiff and Respondent.

——————————

Anna Whitehead appeals from an elder adult abuse restraining order issued against her and in favor of the victim, Kent E. B. She contends that the trial court abused its discretion in issuing the order. We reject that contention.

BACKGROUND

The 72-year-old victim filed a request for an elder adult abuse restraining order. At the hearing on the request, the victim testified that he and Whitehead met at an alcoholics anonymous meeting in Michigan and, thereafter, moved into a home in Los Angeles together. However, theirs was a business relationship, not a romantic one. The victim bought a condominium and Whitehead was supposed to pay him with money she received from selling her house in Michigan. When it later became clear Whitehead was not going to pay the money she owed, she said she would move out. Instead, she called the victim’s employer and therapist and threatened to have him incarcerated. On one occasion, while making oatmeal, she threatened to pour boiling water on the victim. She also hit him with a lint roller.

In her defense, Whitehead testified that the victim wanted her to move in with him because he was passive aggressive and lonely. They had agreed to live together platonically, but then he wanted sex, which she refused. She sent him a break-up text, and that’s when they had a fight in which he got hit with a remote control. She called the victim’s employer because, as a rape survivor, she felt that evicting her for refusing to have sex with the victim constituted sexual assault.

At the conclusion of testimony, the trial court said it believed the victim and found that Whitehead made no sense, was “totally unbelievable,” “overly dramatic,” and perhaps a “little unstable.” The trial court granted the restraining order, effective until January 17, 2022.

DISCUSSION

Under the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act, a trial court may issue a protective order to prevent a recurrence of abuse, on a showing of reasonable proof of a past act or acts of abuse to the petitioning elder. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 15657.03, subd. (c)). We review an order issued under that act for abuse of discretion and the factual findings necessary to support such an order for substantial evidence. (Bookout v. Nielsen (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 1131, 1137–1138.) We resolve all conflicts in the evidence in favor of the prevailing party and indulge all legitimate and reasonable inferences in favor of the trial court’s findings. (Ibid.)

Here, Whitehead argues that the trial court abused its discretion in issuing the order because there was no evidence of future harm, as both parties agreed that Whitehead would be moving out of the home. However, a showing of future harm is unnecessary to the issuance of an order. Rather, a protective order under the act “may issue on the basis of evidence of past abuse, without any particularized showing that the wrongful acts will be continued or repeated.” (Gdowski v. Gdowski (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 128, 137.) Here, there was sufficient evidence of past abuse. The victim testified that Whitehead threatened him with physical harm, called his employer and therapist in an effort to have him imprisoned, and hit him with a lint roller. The trial court made express credibility findings in the victim’s favor, which we may not reweigh on appeal. The trial court therefore did not abuse its discretion.

DISPOSITION

The order is affirmed. Kent E. B. is awarded his costs on appeal.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

DHANIDINA, J.

We concur:

EDMON, P. J.

EGERTON, J.