Filed 3/28/18 Buketov v. Bravo CA2/8
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EIGHT

RAISA MARIA BUKETOV,

Petitioner and Respondent,

v.

PABLO VINICIO BRAVO,

Respondent and Appellant. B271108

(Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. BQ051811)


APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Armando Duron, Judge. Affirmed.

Pablo Bravo, in pro. per., for Respondent and Appellant.

Raisa Maria Buketov, in pro. per., for Petitioner and Respondent.

__________________________

In this appeal from a domestic violence restraining order, Pablo Bravo challenges the trial court’s order that he participate in a 52-week “batterer’s intervention program.” He argues that substantial evidence does not support that order. We disagree and affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Bravo and respondent Raisa Buketov dated for approximately a month in November 2015. On November 28, 2015, Buketov reported to the police that Bravo had held her down and punched her. Bravo was placed under arrest.
Buketov filed a request for a restraining order. The trial court issued a temporary restraining order and set a hearing date on her request for a further injunction.
Both Bravo and Buketov testified at the hearing. Buketov testified that Bravo was a jealous boyfriend, and she had tried to end their relationship several times. Despite these attempts, Bravo continued to come to her home, including three times “in the middle of the night.” He circumvented her locked gate by climbing the wall surrounding her home.
On November 28, 2015, Bravo came to Buketov’s home and was “extremely drunk.” He pushed her into the bathtub, and held her there for almost three hours. He punched her in the face, and called her obscenities. He eventually exited the bathroom, and started “tearing everything apart” in her home.
Buketov called 911. The police responded to the scene. According to the police report, Buketov was “fearful” and had an abrasion on her chin. Bravo was “angry” and “under the influence of alcohol.” The house was ransacked.
In Bravo’s testimony, he acknowledged that he was inebriated at the time of the incident, but then backtracked, stating “I speculated that I had been drinking.” He also acknowledged that Buketov had asked him to leave. When asked why he did not leave, Bravo said he “couldn’t leave” because he “was going to go either kill [him]self driving home or get arrested for a DUI.” He denied hitting Buketov and suggested her injuries were caused by her anemia.
The court found Buketov credible with respect to the described incident and Bravo “totally not credible.” The court granted Buketov’s request for a three-year restraining order, and ordered Bravo to participate in a “52-week batterer’s intervention program.” Bravo timely appealed.

DISCUSSION
On appeal, Bravo does not challenge the issuance of the restraining order. He argues only that the court erred in ordering him to participate in a batterer’s program because the record merely showed “one incident of erratic behavior while intoxicated.” We conclude the court did not abuse its discretion.
The Domestic Violence Prevention Act (DVPA) provides for the issuance of protective orders in domestic violence situations. (Faton v. Ahmedo (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 1160, 1168.) Under the DVPA, “the court may issue an order requiring the restrained party to participate in a batterer’s program . . . .” (Fam. Code, § 6343, subd. (a).) We review the court’s issuance of a restraining order under the DVPA and related orders for abuse of discretion. (J.J. v. M.F. (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 968, 975.)
Here, the record contained ample evidence supporting the court’s order. Despite Buketov’s attempts to end her relationship with Bravo, he continued to show up at her home, scaling the wall surrounding her house in the middle of the night. On the night of the incident, he punched her and held her down. He then ransacked her house in a drunken rage. At the hearing on the restraining order, Bravo denied having hit Buketov and suggested an implausible reason for her injuries. The court cited Bravo’s “utter denials to the court about what happened” as a reason for its decision to order him to participate in a batterer’s program.
In light of the evidence that Bravo harassed Buketov by repeatedly showing up at her house unwelcome in the middle of the night, attacked her in her home, ransacked it, and completely denied any inappropriate behavior, the court’s decision to order Bravo to participate in a batterer’s program was well-reasoned.
DISPOSITION
We affirm. Respondent is to recover her costs on appeal.


RUBIN, ACTING P. J.
WE CONCUR:


GRIMES, J. ROGAN, J.*