McGranahan v. Bedford

SAMANTHA R. McGRANAHAN, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RANDY J. BEDFORD, Defendant and Appellant.

B307387

California Court of Appeals, Second District, Second Division

March 30, 2022

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County No PD063617, Jonathan L. Rosenbloom, Judge. Affirmed.

Randy J. Bedford, in pro. per., for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

CHAVEZ, J.

Randy J. Bedford (appellant) appeals from an order denying his request for a domestic violence restraining order (DVRO) against his former wife, Samantha R. McGranahan (respondent).^[1] Appellant appears to primarily object to the trial court's evidentiary decisions. Without providing any citations to the law of evidence, appellant argues that the trial court erred in refusing to consider the evidence he offered. We find the trial court did not abuse its discretion in declining to admit exhibits that were incomplete or were hearsay. Further, the court did not err in declining to consider allegations that were made in another court and previously ruled upon. Appellant has also failed to show that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his request for a DVRO. We affirm the order.

BACKGROUND

Appellant and respondent were previously married and have three minor children: P.B., B.B., and N.B. The parties separated on January 31, 2018, and divorced on December 18, 2018. In March 2019, the parties signed a stipulation and order granting appellant unmonitored visitation with the children every second and fourth weekend of each month.

Petitions for DVRO

Appellant filed his petition for a DVRO on July 8, 2020, seeking protection for himself and the parties' three children. Appellant attached several pages of allegations. He alleged that he feared for his children's safety because respondent is continually reported for acts of abuse against them. He also alleged that he feared for his own safety because respondent continually made false reports that he was a child abuser. He further cited incidents in which the children had allegedly talked about respondent physically abusing them. Appellant accused respondent of concealing the children from him and making false statements about him to a government agency. Many photographs, police reports, e-mails, and other documents were attached to the petition.

On July 22, 2020, respondent filed a separate petition for a DVRO against appellant, seeking to protect herself and the three children. Respondent alleged that appellant had filed several false police reports against her claiming things such as parental abduction. Respondent alleged that appellant has harassed and stalked her constantly since she left him and that he goes to great lengths to determine her whereabouts. She alleged he had a history of violence against her and had refused to participate in court-ordered classes for parenting and domestic violence for perpetrators. He also failed to be drug-tested as ordered by the court.

Hearing on petitions

The hearing on the parties' competing DVRO petitions was held on August 12, 2020. The children were represented by counsel. Appellant and respondent both appeared in propria persona. The court began with appellant's petition for DVRO and admitted appellant's declaration into evidence. Much of the hearing was spent determining whether appellant had any admissible evidence to support his various allegations against respondent.

The court noted that appellant presented evidence of "filings that [appellant had] made with various government agencies." The court inquired, "Have any of these claims been pursued by the agencies or have they all been cleared?" After pointing out that many of the documents appellant had attached to his DVRO petition were filings that were made in the dependency court, the court noted that such documents were hearsay, which the court could not properly consider.

The children's counsel informed the court:

"This was actually discussed at the . . . hearing. All of these reports, none of these are new allegations. [The Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services] has received the referrals. They've done their investigations. Their investigations for the most part have come back unfounded or inconclusive. But they have determined there is no danger to these children. They have determined dependency is not the appropriate jurisdiction because the children are in fact not in any type of danger."

The children's counsel further represented that the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services was not currently considering opening a dependency matter, and the children were not under investigation. The trial court informed appellant that it could not consider matters that had "already been considered by another court and ruled on."

Appellant also offered as an exhibit a chart that appellant created based on various reports made in dependency court. The court responded, "The chart itself that you have prepared is hearsay, which does not come in in a domestic violence restraining order proceeding." Appellant also attempted to put into evidence several incomplete records. The court stated, "[W]e can't consider exhibits that are not complete because, for the integrity of the process, we don't know what's been excluded."

The court admitted a Facebook post after respondent admitted to posting it.^[2]

Appellant attempted to have the court consider evidence of "[a] zoom call, a court call" that occurred approximately one month prior to the hearing. The court informed appellant that the statements at the hearing were protected under the litigation privilege.

When it appeared that appellant was struggling to find admissible evidence to support his claims, the trial court inquired whether appellant wanted a brief continuance:

"It's taken a while for you to search for examples of [domestic violence] and exhibits supporting it. Do you want to take some time to do that? I am a big believer in the saying that just because someone doesn't tell a story well doesn't mean there isn't a story to tell. So I want to give you this opportunity to present your case and for Ms McGranahan to present her side. And then of course, for input from your children's court-appointed counsel, but I need to know if there is something actually there. [¶] . . . [¶] . . . I just need you to focus and I need you to come up with, with concrete examples so we can examine them and determine the merit of them."

When appellant said he was "trying to understand exactly what" he could use in court, the court replied, "actually the majority of the people who come here represent themselves. And that's fine. [¶] . . . [¶] . . . But we expect them to familiarize themselves with the procedures in court and the substantive law."

The hearing continued with appellant attempting to get exhibits admitted into evidence, and various objections based on incomplete records and documents that had been the subject of rulings in a different court.

Following lengthy proceedings the court informed respondent, "If there is conduct here, and that's what I'm trying to seek out from you, because this is your burden to show me that there is conduct, I will absolutely consider it. But thus far I have seen one piece of evidence regarding disturbing your peace." Minor's counsel argued that the Facebook post (which was the only exhibit admitted from appellant) was "quite remote in time." The children's counsel did not join appellant's request for a DVRO on behalf of the children.

Trial court ruling

Following appellant's presentation of his evidence the court held:

"The only claim which the court heard today was a Facebook post and a responsive post. The court examined that carefully and finds that it does not rise to the level of domestic abuse that would constitute issuing an order. [¶] So the court is going to deny [appellant's] request for a restraining order for the reasons that I stated."

Notice of appeal

On August 24, 2020, appellant filed his notice of appeal.

DISCUSSION

I. Standard of review

A trial court's decision to grant or deny a restraining order is reviewed for abuse of discretion. (Rodriguez v. Menjivar (2015) 243 Cal.App.4th 816, 820.) "'"The appropriate test for abuse of discretion is whether the trial court exceeded the bounds of reason. When two or more inferences can reasonably be deduced from the facts, the reviewing court has no authority to substitute its decision for that of the trial court."'" (In re Marriage of G. (2017) 11 Cal.App.5th 773, 780.)

We will not disturb a trial court's evidentiary ruling "'"except on a showing the trial court exercised its discretion in an arbitrary, capricious, or patently absurd manner that resulted in a manifest miscarriage of justice."'" (Briley v. City of West Covina (2021) 66 Cal.App.5th 119, 132.) "A miscarriage of justice results only if 'it is reasonably probable that a result more favorable to the appealing party would have been reached in the absence of the error.'" (Ibid., quoting People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 836.)

We review the trial court's factual findings for substantial evidence. (Sabbah v. Sabbah (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 818, 822.) Under this standard, "[o]ur sole inquiry is 'whether, on the entire record, there is any substantial evidence, contradicted or uncontradicted,' supporting the court's finding." (Ibid.) "'We must accept as true all evidence . . . tending to establish the correctness of the trial court's findings . . ., resolving every conflict in favor of the judgment.'" (Id. at p. 823.) Where the parties do not fully develop a factual issue below, we may exercise our discretion to decline to consider it on appeal. (Bikkina v....