Marriage of M.F. and E.F. CA6

── Marriage of M.F. and E.F. CA6 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: June 08, 2026 Category: General Filed 6/8/26 Marriage of M.F. and E.F. CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT In re the Marriage of M.F. and E.F. H053240 (Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. 21FL003336) M.F., Respondent, v. E.F., Appellant. Appellant E.F. challenges a domestic violence restraining order (DVRO) granted in favor of his ex-wife, respondent M.F.1 E.F. argues that the evidence relied on by the trial court was unreliable and insufficient. He argues further that he was not afforded due process at the DVRO hearing because the trial court did not offer him the opportunity to cross-examine M.F. and further develop the record. We conclude that the DVRO is supported by substantial evidence, including a prior incident of physical violence, even though the date of that incident was somewhat uncertain. We also conclude that E.F. has not met his burden to show any prejudicial error in the conduct of the hearing. Accordingly, we affirm. 1 Although the parties’ briefs use full names, we will use initials to preserve personal privacy under rule 8.90(b) of the California Rules of Court.  I. BACKGROUND E.F. and M.F. were married for five years before divorcing in November 2024. In December 2024, M.F. filed a request for a DVRO against E.F., and the trial court granted a temporary restraining order pending a hearing. In her request for the DVRO, M.F. described the following incidents of abuse: (1) 2015 – E.F. took photos of her naked and posted private videos of her on Facebook; (2) 2015 – E.F. came home late smelling of alcohol and forcefully removed M.F.’s clothing and had sexual intercourse with her; (3) June 2019 – During a drive back from Michigan, E.F. became upset during a conversation and punched M.F. in the face; (4) August “202-” – E.F. became angry during a conversation and strangled M.F. with two hands; (5) November 2021 – After M.F. went through IVF treatment for three years, E.F. cancelled her embryo transfer surgery; (6) November 2024 – E.F. came to M.F.’s house drunk late at night. Although the hearing was originally set for early January, it was continued to February 27, 2025. E.F. and M.F. testified, both representing themselves. M.F. used a Spanish interpreter, but she also spoke in English for at least part of the hearing. E.F.’s current girlfriend, J.O., testified using the Spanish interpreter, as well. M.F. started her testimony by describing the most recent incident on November 4, 2024, when she heard a noise outside her door at 8:30 p.m. and saw E.F. “hiding into the shadow of the house.” She asked him why he was there, and he did not really say. (“He’s like, nothing, nothing.”) She told him he was not welcome at her house: “This is more than five times you’re coming to my house. And I told you, you are not welcome. This is my house. And – and see you in court ….” She also said to E.F. that she was scared of him, and she reminded him about how he had strangled her in the past. M.F. found out that J.O. was waiting in E.F.’s car during this encounter, which she says lasted about “20 minutes or less.” M.F. testified about other incidents in the more distant past, including the 2021 cancellation of her IVF treatment, and the strangulation “in August.” The court asked for