M.C. v. W.G. CA4/1

── M.C. v. W.G. CA4/1 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: April 24, 2026 Category: General Filed 4/24/26 M.C. v. W.G. CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA M.C., D085412 Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. EDV001108 W.G., Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Imperial County, Michael Domenzain, Judge. Affirmed. W.G., in pro. per., for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.  Defendant and appellant W.G., a self-represented litigant, appeals from an order renewing a domestic violence restraining order (DVRO; Fam. Code,1 § 6345) against him and in favor of plaintiff and respondent M.C. W.G. contends the renewal order should be reversed and vacated because the record lacks substantial evidence that M.C. had an objectively reasonable apprehension of future abuse, and the superior court applied non-statutory criteria in granting the renewal rather than the proper test under section 6345. We hold W.G. has not demonstrated the court abused its discretion in renewing the DVRO, and thus affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In October 2023, M.C. obtained a one-year DVRO against W.G. following W.G.’s September 2023 arrest on a Penal Code section 273.5, subdivision (a) charge (willful infliction of corporal injury on a victim). As M.C. reported the incident to a police officer, in early September 2023, she and W.G. argued and W.G. tried to grab her cell phone when he suspected she was hiding things from him. When she did not let him have her phone, W.G. grabbed M.C. by the throat, threw her to the bed and straddled her while trying to take her phone away. As a result, M.C. sustained bruises on her left forearm. She showed the officer photographs of her bruises. The DVRO required W.G. to pay for a probation-certified 52-week batterer intervention program. It also provided that the order would not be in effect if W.G and M.C. were “performing work duties at the same time” or “while [they were] attending classes . . . at the same time.” In November 2023, W.G. 1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Family Code. M.C. has not filed a respondent’s brief, but that does not affect W.G.’s burden to show the court abused its discretion in renewing the DVRO. (In re Marriage of Fregoso & Hernandez (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 698, 702.) 2 submitted proof he had enrolled in a domestic violence/anger management program. About a year later in September 2024, W.G. sought ex parte emergency relief, asking the court to vacate the DVRO. He argued the order was based on asserted fraud by M.C. concerning her injuries and claims of abuse,2 and that the proceedings violated his constitutional rights to due process and to a jury trial. W.G. asserted the restraining order had a negative impact on his life and career as a paramedic. According to W.G., the order no longer served its purpose as M.C. no longer felt threatened and there was no reason to subject him to the order’s restrictions.3 The court ruled W.G. had not met the burden to obtain ex parte emergency relief. 2 In a sworn declaration made to “the best of [his] knowledge,” W.G. argued the evidence “starkly contradict[ed]” M.C.’s claims that she suffered over a year of abuse, as they worked together on the same ambulance crew, enrolled in the same paramedic