Filed 1/28/20 Yu v. Yu CA1/5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

REGINE YU,

Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.

OLIVER S. YU,

Defendant and Respondent.

A156649

(San Mateo

Super. Ct. No. 18FAM00084B)

The trial court denied Regine Yu’s request for a domestic violence restraining order pursuant to the Domestic Violence Prevention Act (DVPA, Fam. Code, § 6200, et seq.). Regine appeals in propria persona. She claims the denial of her request was an abuse of discretion.

We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

After Oliver petitioned to dissolve his marriage to Regine, she applied for a domestic violence restraining order. The court issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) and set the matter for a hearing on the merits. After several continuances, the court held a hearing. Both parties testified, and the court admitted Oliver’s documentary evidence. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court denied Regine’s restraining order request, terminated the TRO, and returned the exhibits to the parties.

DISCUSSION

The purpose of the DVPA “is 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.) The DVPA “provides for the issuance of restraining or ‘protective’ orders, . . . that enjoin . . . acts of abuse.” (Nakamura v. Parker (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 327, 334.) We review the denial of Regine’s request for a domestic violence restraining order for abuse of discretion. (Burquet v. Brumbaugh (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 1140, 1143.)

“It is the burden of the [appellant] to provide an adequate record to assess error.” (Nielsen v. Gibson (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 318, 324.) Regine has not satisfied this burden. With many documents missing from the clerk’s transcript, and without a reporter’s transcript of the hearing, “we ‘ “must conclusively presume that the evidence is ample to sustain the [trial court’s] findings.” ’ ” (Id. at pp. 324–325.) In other words, “in the absence of a required reporter’s transcript and other [necessary] documents, we presume the judgment is correct.” (Stasz v. Eisenberg (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 1032, 1039.) Based on this inadequate record, we reject Regine’s claim that she was denied a fair hearing, and her contention that the court erred by excluding her evidence. Regine’s remaining arguments have been considered and merit no further discussion.

We decline Oliver’s cursory request for an unspecified amount of attorney fees incurred in defending the appeal.

DISPOSITION

The January 4, 2019 order is affirmed. Oliver is awarded costs on appeal. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.278(a)(2).)

 

_________________________

Jones, P. J.

WE CONCUR:

_________________________

Needham, J.

_________________________

Burns, J.

A156649