H. C. v. Contreras CA5

── H. C. v. Contreras CA5 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: May 28, 2026 Category: General Filed 5/28/26 H. C. v. Contreras CA5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 H. C., a Minor, etc., F089316 Plaintiff and Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. 23CEFL03867) v. RUDY CONTRERAS, OPINION Defendant and Respondent. APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Irene A. Luna, Judge. Wanger Jones Helsley, Amanda G. Hebesha, John P. Kinsey, and Stephanie Hosman, for Plaintiff and Appellant. Moran Law Firm, Amanda K. Moran, Janay D. Kinder, and S. Eric Bishop II, for Defendant and Respondent. -ooOoo- Bethany G. sought a protective order protecting H. C., her minor son, from H. C.’s father, Rudy C. Numerous witnesses testified at a hotly contested hearing after which the parties filed closing briefs. Rudy’s brief, submitted by counsel, contained fictitious caselaw and misstated the law. Counsel for Bethany directly and swiftly pointed the errors out to the trial court. The trial court declined to issue the requested order, but its ruling erroneously relied on a nonexistent case and a serious legal misstatement—the very same shortcomings Bethany had already noted. As explained below, we reverse for further proceedings. BACKGROUND The parties were married in 2016; H.C. was born later that year. The parties separated in 2019 with the parties now sharing “joint physical custody” of the child. This matter originated when Bethany filed a “Request for Domestic Violence Restraining Order” “on behalf of” H. C., to protect him from Rudy.1 In the request, Bethany alleged Rudy “abused [her] for [the] entire marriage”—which ended in separation—and “[n]ow” Rudy had “begun to physically abuse” H. C. The allegations recited H. C.’s complaint Rudy recently hit him four times and on at least one other prior occasion. Bethany also explained Rudy caused her “[p]sychological, mental and emotional distress, including but not limited to nightmares, stress, fear, shame, dread, guilt, sleeplessness, psychical distress, anxiety, depression, [and] sadness.” Ultimately, Bethany sought the order because Rudy’s “physical violence towards” H. C. had “increased[.]” Bethany’s request included dozens of photographs and a declaration from a “retained” physician that examined H. C. The doctor opined an injury to H. C.’s neck was “consistent with ‘partial ligature marks[.]’ ” The opinion was based on “several photographs,” with the doctor finally concluding the injury was consistent with both Rudy’s explanation but also abuse. 1 The separation and custody case is an ongoing separate matter. 2.  The trial court first declined granting a temporary order, reasoning the matter “[a]ppear[ed] to be child custody/child visitation and requires evidentiary hearing.”2 Rudy filed a response denying he ever “abused [his] son[.]” He claimed Bethany’s allegations were “false[.]” The matter eventually proceeded to trial but not before Child Protective Services (CPS) became involved. CPS opened an investigation after a doctor reported H. C. complained Rudy “pushed him down” four times. Bethany updated her initia