Filed 11/23/05 Orellana v. Castillo CA1/5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

SANTOS A. ORELLANA, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JOSE A. CASTILLO, Defendant and Appellant.

A109064 (San Francisco County Super. Ct. No. FL 039065)

Jose A. Castillo appeals, in propria persona, the denial of his application for a temporary restraining order (TRO) under the Domestic Violence Prevention Act (the DVPA) (Fam. Code,^[1] § 6200) against his former wife, Santos A. Orellana (also known as Santos A. Castillo).^[2] Jose contends his request for a TRO was erroneously denied. We reject the contention and affirm.

Background

On October 25, 2004, Jose was summarily issued a domestic violence TRO against Santos, to end on November 10, the date of the hearing. Jose's form request for the TRO sought: the right to record communications made to him by Santos that violate the court's orders, an order that Santos attend a batterer intervention program, and the return of personal and family documents in her possession. Jose's application stated that the most recent abuse occurred on the night of October 14, when he saw Santos break the side mirror of his car. He stated that he filed a report of the incident at the police station. He also stated that Santos might have a gun or other weapon in her possession. Jose described the second most recent abuse as occurring on October 13, when Santos followed him onto a bus that he took to work, pointed at him while on the bus and followed him off the bus. Jose also described that on October 9, Santos drove past the home he shared with his mother and pointed at them. Attached to Jose's request for a domestic violence prevention order was a form request for legal custody of the parties' three minor children, which stated his belief that Santos would remove the minors from California and the United States without his permission.

The register of actions reveals that on November 1, 2004, Santos filed her form answer to the TRO, however, no answer is included in the appellate record.

On November 8, 2004, Jose filed a written response to Santos's answer in which he stated that Santos was failing to (1) comply with the court's warnings to stay away from his mother, (2) receive therapy for her violent behavior, and (3) return his stolen documents. Jose also accused Santos's attorney of providing false information to the court.

At the commencement of the November 10, 2004 TRO hearing, the court (Judge Kahn) stated that, given its familiarity with the case, and in accordance with Unified Family Court policies, it would handle the TRO request rather than the court commissioner.^[3] Jose stated he had reviewed Santos's answer and acknowledged that the basis for his TRO request was events occurring between October 9 and 14, 2004. Jose said he saw Santos break his car mirror. He presented a form to obtain a police report but no police report was before the trial court. Jose also said he felt unsafe because Santos had followed him onto the bus and twice followed him to his job. He also said Santos was making anonymous calls to his answering machine, but he failed to bring the answering machine's audio tape to the hearing. Jose said his mother was very afraid because Santos kicked the door of his and his mother's home while his mother was home.

Jose's mother, Maria Ramirez, testified that two days before the hearing some people dressed in black knocked at the door causing her to be afraid. Ramirez admitted that she could not tell who the people were. When asked by the court if she was afraid of Santos, Ramirez responded, â€