Marriage of C.M. and A.S. CA5

── Marriage of C.M. and A.S. CA5 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: May 07, 2026 Category: General Filed 5/7/26 Marriage of C.M. and A.S. CA5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT In re the Marriage of C.M. and A.S. C.M., F090435 Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 16CEFL02670) v. OPINION A.S., Appellant. THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Glenda Allen- Hill, Judge. A.S., in pro. per., for Appellant. No appearance for Respondent. -ooOoo- * Before Hill, P. J., Peña, J. and Meehan, J.  INTRODUCTION Appellant A.S. (Father) appeals from the trial court’s order granting respondent C.M.’s (Mother) petition for a domestic violence restraining order (DVRO) under the Domestic Violence Prevention Act (DVPA) (Fam. Code, § 6200, et seq.) (undesignated statutory references are to the Family Code), and denying Father’s petition for a DVRO. Father argues the trial court failed to make the necessary express findings under section 6305, and no substantial evidence supports the ruling. As the trial court declined to issue mutual restraining orders, the trial court was not obligated to make express findings under section 6305. Further, we find substantial evidence supports the trial court’s order. On this basis, we affirm. FACTUAL BACKGROUND In August 2025, Mother filed a petition for a DVRO. She alleged that, during a custody exchange, she attempted to speak with her son because Father would not let him exit the car. She told her son he did not need to be afraid, and he could come home if he wanted. According to Mother, Father then shoved her twice in front of the children, leaving a visible mark on her arm. Their daughter tried to run toward Mother, but Mother told her to stay back because she was not sure what Father would do next. Ultimately the police were called, and Father was arrested. Mother also indicated Father made harassing phone calls to her, drives by her home weekly, and is stalking her. About 10 days later, Father filed a petition also seeking a DVRO. Father filed a supporting declaration stating that on July 25, 2025, during a routine custody exchange, Mother became extremely aggressive and tried to forcibly remove their son from Father’s convertible vehicle because he wanted to stay with Father. According to Father, Mother and her fiancé, who was present for the altercation, acted violently and damaged Father’s vehicle while trying to extract their son from his car. He filed a request for sole legal and physical custody of the children. He also attached photographs from the incident and a $6,863.43 repair estimate for his car. 2.  In a supplemental declaration, Father explained his friend was present at the custody exchange to serve Mother with legal documents regarding their custody case. Mother came close to Father and then accused him of shoving her, which Father asserts is untrue. Father had positioned himself in self-defense to prevent Mother from reaching into his vehicle where their son was sitting. Despite the purported shove, Mother remained very close to Father,