Marriage of Holland CA5

Filed 10/21/26 Marriage of Holland CA5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or or dered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 NICOLE HOLLAND and JASON HOLLAND. JASON HOLLAND, F090605 Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. PFL305089) v. NICOLE HOLLAND, OPINION Appellant. APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Tulare County. Glade F. Roper, Judge. (Retired Judge of the Tulare Super. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Decker Law, James Decker, and Griffin Schindler for Appellant. Jason Holland, in pro. per., for Respondent. -ooOoo-  Jason and Nicole Holland were married and had a minor child.1 Their marriage deteriorated after the birth of their child. Nicole eventually moved out of the county where they lived, taking their child with her. Jason filed for dissolution of the marriage in the Tulare County Superior Court and sought a custody order regarding their child. In the meantime, the parties had disputes over custody of their child. Nicole ultimately filed a request for a domestic violence restraining order against Jason. Jason also filed a request for a domestic violence restraining order against Nicole. The family court held a combined trial on the custody issue as well as on the parties’ respective requests for domestic violence restraining orders. After trial, the court denied both parties’ requests for domestic violence restraining orders. On the custody issue, the court granted joint legal and joint physical custody to both parents. Nicole appeals solely from the family court’s denial of her request for a domestic violence restraining order against Jason. We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND I. Overview. Jason and Nicole worked together in Porterville. They started dating in May 2019 and were “officially a couple” in August 2019. In February 2020, Nicole moved in with Jason in Porterville; Jason had lived in the home for some time before Nicole moved in. In December 2022, they got married. Jason had two young daughters, Tay. H. and Tar. H., from a prior relationship. He shared custody of his daughters on an equal basis with their mother. Initially, Jason and Nicole did not have disagreements over Tay. H. and Tar H., and Nicole’s relationship with the girls was good. In May 2023, Jason and Nicole had a daughter, P.H. After P.H. was born, tensions arose in Jason and Nicole’s marriage. A big point of contention was the fact that Jason’s older daughters started playing travel sports, and their activities absorbed a lot of Jason’s 1 We will refer to the parties by their first names for purposes of clarity. 2. time outside of work. Nicole felt there was too much focus on the girls’ sports, especially at a time when P.H. was so young and Nicole was a new mother. In this context, the relationship between Nicole and Jason’s older daughters grew strained. Nicole would make disparaging statements about Tay. H. and Tar. H. Thereafter, Nicole and Jason were involved in a few marital disagreements and disputes that severely impacted their marriage. Jason eventually decided he “was done” with the marriage and Nicole ultimately moved out of the marital home on January 15, 2024. When Nicole moved out of the marital home, she relocated to her father’s house in San Bernardino County. Nicole took P.H. with her. Nicole mostly teleworked from her father’s house thereafter but occasionally worked in Porterville. Jason filed a petition for dissolution of marriage on January 17, 2024. On May 24, 2024, Jason filed a request to establish custody orders regarding P.H. Jason requested that his request for a custody order be heard on shortened time, on June 10, 2024. However, the family court denied his request for an order shortening time and scheduled a hearing on July 1, 2024. Both Jason and Nicole wanted to take care of and spend time with their daughter P.H. During the period from January 2024 to June 2024, Jason saw P.H. for limited amounts of time; most of the time, P.H. remained with Nicole. On June 1, 2024, Jason told Nicole he wanted to keep P.H. for a week. Nicole dropped P.H. off with him on June 2, 2024; he again told Nicole he would not be returning P.H. to her that same day. Nicole responded by requesting wellness checks for P.H. from law enforcement. Both the Tulare County Sheriff’s Office and Porterville Police Department conducted wellness checks at Jason’s house and his sister’s house, respectively, several times that week. 3.  On June 11, 2024, Nicole filed a request for a domestic violence restraining order (DVRO) against Jason. She also requested, in conjunction with her application, an order giving her sole physical custody of P.H. On June 12, 2024, the family court issued a temporary restraining order in favor of Nicole and against Jason. The court also issued a custody order granting sole physical custody to Nicole, with no visitation for Jason. The court set an initial hearing on Nicole’s DVRO request for July 1, 2024. On June 27, 2024, Jason filed a response to Nicole’s DVRO request. On June 28, 2024, Jason filed a request for a DVRO against Nicole. The court issued a temporary restraining order against Nicole, with Jason as the protected party.2 On July 1, 2024, the family court held a hearing on Nicole’s DVRO request and Jason’s May 23, 2024, request for a custody order. The family court issued an updated, temporary custody order. Jason was granted visitation with P.H. every weekend, from 9:00 a.m. on Saturdays to 3:30 p.m. on Mondays. The court referred the parties to attend child custody recommending counseling later that month and set a further hearing on August 7, 2024. At the August 7, 2024, hearing, Nicole disagreed with the custody recommendation of the child custody recommending counselor. The court therefore set the custody matter for trial. The court continued the temporary custody order providing Jason with visitation from Friday evenings to Monday afternoons. Thereafter, the family court held a combined trial on Nicole’s request for a DVRO, Jason’s request for a DVRO, and Jason’s request for a custody order. The trial occurred on three days spread over several months: February 27, 2025; July 2, 2025; and August 28, 2025. During the course of the trial, the court issued additional temporary 2 The record does not disclose the date on which the family court issued the temporary restraining order in favor of Jason and against Nicole. 4. custody orders on April 28, 2025 (continuing custody and visitation order of August 7, 2024) and July 3, 2025 (awarding equal timeshare on a “week to week schedule”). At the trial, Nicole testified on her own behalf and called Jason as a witness; she did not call any other witnesses. Jason testified on his own behalf; he also called a coworker, Priscilla P., and his mother as witnesses. Following the trial, the family court issued its ruling. The court denied Nicole’s request for a DVRO against Jason and also denied Jason’s request for a DVRO against Nicole. Regarding custody, the court awarded joint legal and joint physical custody to Jason and Nicole, with an equal, week-to-week timeshare. The court further ordered that once P.H. started school, Jason would have primary physical custody during the school year, with Nicole to have visitation every other weekend. Nicole appealed the family court’s ruling denying her request for a DVRO against Jason. Nicole did not appeal the court’s custody ruling. However, in her opening brief Nicole acknowledges that should she obtain a DVRO against Jason upon resolution of this appeal, the rebuttable presumption of Family Code section 3044, subdivision (a)3 would apply to potentially restrict Jason’s ability to have custody of P.H.4 We next summarize the evidence presented at trial as relevant to Nicole’s request for a DVRO against Jason, with a focus on the incidents at the center of the parties’ collective testimony. 3 Subsequent undesignated statutory references are to the Family Code. 4 Section 3044 provides: “Upon a finding by the court that a party seeking custody of a child has perpetrated domestic violence within the previous five years against the other party seeking custody of the child … there is a rebuttable presumption that an award of sole or joint physical or legal custody of child to a person who has perpetrated domestic violence is detrimental to the best interests of the child.” (§ 3044, subd. (a).) 5. II. October 8, 2023, Incident: Marriage Crumbles. Nicole and Jason both testified about an incident that occurred at their home on October 8, 2023. The incident occurred in a period of family tension over Jason’s involvement with Tay. H. and Tar. H.’s travel sports activities. The October 8, 2023, incident occurred in the early afternoon, when the family gathered to eat a late breakfast. Tay. H. and Tar. H. were there; at the time, they were 10 and 12 years old, respectively. Jason was sitting on the couch in the living room, with P.H. in a baby swing to his right. A large, heavy coffee table that was usually in the center of the room had been pulled up close to the couch so the family could eat on it. Nicole had just finished making breakfast burritos for Jason and herself, in the kitchen. Tay. H. was feeding P.H. Nicole was upset that Tay. H. was feeding P.H., because Nicole wanted to feed P.H. herself. However, Jason encouraged Tay. H. to feed P.H., so the sisters could bond. Nicole brought over the breakfast burritos to the living room; she got increasingly upset because Jason was allowing Tay. H. to feed P.H. against her wishes. Nicole’s and Jason’s respective testimony about what happened next was very different. Nicole testified: “I came in [to the living room]. I sat our plates of food on the table. I sat down in silence because I was upset. [Tay. H.] completed feeding [P.H.]. And then that’s [when] Jason went and said, ‘What is your problem?’ And I told him that I wanted to feed [P.H.], and he didn’t like my answer.” Tay. H. “got up and went to her bedroom.” Nicole continued: “[Jason] stood up to flip the table.” She added: “He flipped it over in the air. It happened to land on its side after it hit the entertainment center.” Nicole further testified that Jason said, “ ‘I’m so mad at you I could hit you.’ ” She added that Jason knocked photos off the wall. Jason then told his older daughters to get dressed and the three of them left the house. 6.  Nicole acknowledged that when Jason left the house, she “said some very mean things to him.” Nicole testified: “I did say things to him that I regret and I’ve apologized to him for.” Nicole agreed that she probably told him words to the effect, “ ‘I will get the … best … fucking attorney that money can buy through the support of my family and you will be crushed.’ ” Jason described the incident differently. He testified that Nicole brought the burritos to the living room and sat down on the couch with him. He added: “She came in with the two burritos, kind of rejecting the idea that [Tay. H.] is feeding [P.H.]. [Tay. H.] was already feeding [P.H.] at this point and I said, ‘Hey, we all got to enjoy [P.H.].’ ” Jason explained that he and Nicole argued about his older daughters spending some time with P.H. He continued: “And [Nicole] got up, went around the coffee table and started going to [Tay. H.] with her hands out, and got within inches of her, who’s laying on her side feeding [P.H.] in the swing, and I, with the coffee table here, get up, using the couch and the coffee table, and block Nicole from my ten-year-old.” Jason was asked: “When [Nicole] went for [Tay. H.] with her hands out, was there anything that made you concerned that that might be a serious threat?” Jason responded: “Yes, she was going to put hands on my daughter. I don’t know to what degree.” Jason was subsequently asked: “When you got up, you got up in a hurry. Did the -- how did the table catch on you as you got up?” Jason answered: “No, I had it against my knees so it had to be moved for me to move. I had -- my calves were touching the couch, and the coffee table was at the top of my knee to eat off of and watch TV. So when [Nicole] was going towards my daughter, the edge of the coffee table was kind of at the edge of the couch and [P.H.] is right there. Well, I grabbed it with my left hand, my right hand on the edge of the couch, and I pulled myself up and it knocked the table on its side with the top of it -- the table facing away from me towards the TV maybe at a -- slightly angled as I got up and put my hand in between Nicole and my daughter [Tay. H.].” 7.  Jason was further asked: “Did you ever pick up, literally pick up the table?” Jason replied: “No. No, not at all. We moved it around quite a bit, pull it to each other’s knees to eat off of, that kind of thing.” Jason explained it was an “awkward size” and “just heavy enough” so that it would be difficult for a person to pick it up and throw it. He testified: “I was sitting close to the coffee table, and I jumped up to place myself between [Nicole] and [Tay. H.], [and] the coffee table went over.” Jason also testified: “[Nicole] grabbed [P.H.] once I stopped her from getting close to [Tay. H.], and basically threatened me with domestic violence and restraining orders, and [said] she’ll destroy me[.]” Referring to Nicole’s prior relationships, Jason added: “[S]he lives in a space [such] that if she doesn’t get her way, she’ll use her family’s money to get restraining orders.” Jason continued: “So it was basically threats of, ‘I’ll say I was abused. I’ll say -- I’ll get a domestic violence restraining order and take all your kids from you[.]’ ” At that point, Jason left the house with Tay. H. and Tar. H. He dropped the girls at their mother’s house because they “were too scared to go back.” He testified: “I didn’t stay at my house. I wasn’t going back there until a conversation could be had and I didn’t want to go to jail … on a fake domestic violence charge.” Jason testified that the dissolution of his marriage with Nicole was rooted in the October 8, 2023, incident. Following that incident, he started asking Nicole to move to the living room as their relationship was badly damaged. He testified: “It just all stems from the October incident with the coffee table. When I left and the messages [she sent] … that she’s going to take her family’s money and support[,] and crush me.” III. January 12, 2024, Incident: Nicole Moves to San Bernardino County with P.H. Both Nicole and Jason testified about an incident on January 12, 2024, after which Nicole moved out of the marital home and Jason filed a petition for dissolution of the marriage. 8.  On January 12, 2024, a Friday, Jason and Nicole were throwing a birthday party at their home for Tar. H., who had just turned 13. Approximately 50 family members and friends were to attend the celebration. Nicole was working from home that day and had P.H. with her. Jason was working until 1:00 p.m. that day. Jason was asked, “And when you arrived at home on January 12th, what was your mood?” He responded: “We had been fighting, so I was -- already knew [where] the direction was going. And I was pretty sad, to be honest with you.” Nicole had been texting Jason to complain that when he left the house with the girls that morning, they had left the front door unlocked. Jason testified that Tay. H. was the last one out that morning and had accidentally unlocked the door when she meant to lock it. When Jason got home, the argument about Tay. H. failing to lock the door that morning continued. Jason left again, perhaps to get a birthday present for Tar. H or to go for a drive. While he was out, Nicole texted him again, complaining about his older daughters. She texted: “I asked you to have the girls clean the bathroom the other night so I didn’t have to stay up until 2 am doing it but that didn’t happen did it.” She further texted: “And the conversation with the girls] about l[ock]ing the damn door behind you probably never happened like you said it would either.” Jason texted Nicole back: “You’re about to be publicly embarrassed Nicole. I’d stop worrying about whatever it is you’re worrying about.” He also texted: “You’re going to have new problems.” He added: “The audacity you have to ruin moments that are not yours to ruin! It’s supposed to be [Tar. H.’s] birthday!” In addition, he texted: “But you’re going to get your wish.” Jason testified: “[Nicole] was making the day about herself, as she tends to do.” When he got back from the drive, he moved Nicole’s things from their shared bedroom to the living room and the party was canceled. Nicole admitted into evidence a short video showing Jason methodically moving her clothes; Nicole can be heard crying on the video, asking Jason to stop what he was doing. 9.  Jason explained that after he moved her things, Nicole “attacked [him]” and the party was “officially over.” He testified: “[Nicole] was very upset that I moved her stuff [to] the living room, and she ran down the hallway with the only thing I could describe as a look of rage, with her hands like this. And got me. I turned to the side because she had so much momentum and she fell down.”5 His parents and a few others arrived soon after and advised him to leave the house and stay somewhere else for the time being. Jason then left the home, while some relatives stayed behind to collect some of his things. He stated: “[Nicole] refused to even let them grab one thing of mine so I could continue to work living on someone else’s couch.” Jason testified that the marriage was “done.” He said: “[W]e had already been on the rocks since the October incident. [Nicole] said some things she couldn’t justify or apologize for and we just weren’t working out. [P.H.] was still off limits to everybody, and ruining my daughter’s 13th birthday party was basically just the last sign I needed to make the decision.” After Jason left, Nicole texted him, asking him to return. She testified: “I was very emotional, and I didn’t want our marriage to end because I did not want to do this to [P.H.].” She added: “I begged him to come back home and talk to me about what was going on and see [P.H.].” Jason testified: “I have thousands of messages and voicemails and pictures and videos of [Nicole] basically begging to be back with me, and me politely saying no as politely as I possibly could. I was very respectful.” 5 Another witness, Priscilla P., who was a coworker of both Nicole and Jason, testified she arrived at the house for Tar. H.’s birthday party. She stated: “And I got there. [Nicole and Jason] were having a[n] argument, discussion, and she came from the bedroom and lunged herself at him, and he pulled back and she kind of fell to the ground.” Priscilla added: “There was physical contact, but it was only for a second because, like I said, he moved out of the way.” In addition, Priscilla said: “[Nicole] got up, went to the bedroom, I believe grabbed the baby, and by then the rest of the family members had showed up.” Nicole subsequently testified: “I did not lunge at Jason, and Priscilla also arrived when the rest of [Jason’s] family arrived.” 10.  On January 15, 2024, Nicole left the marital home with P.H.; she relocated to her father’s house in Oak Hills in San Bernardino County. Nicole testified: “I fled a situation that I didn’t feel safe in on January 15th to my father’s house.” Nicole acknowledged that, before leaving, she put up new cameras in the marital home. She could access the cameras remotely and did so after she relocated to San Bernardino County. She would be alerted to motion and could see what was happening in the house. Nicole was asked: “And how long did you continue to access the cameras?” Nicole answered: “Jason [shortly] removed them and put them … in a trash can or something.” Jason testified he found six new cameras when he returned to the house after Nicole had left. He said: “I found [six] that day, yeah. And then I also found some several weeks later .… There [were] other hidden ones, one in a BBQ so she can still hear.” IV. Miscellaneous Incidents. Nicole testified about the family’s visit to the home of friends for a barbeque on December 11, 2023. She said when she was ready to leave, she went outside and got in her truck with P.H. She did not have P.H.’s car seat, so she called Jason, but he did not answer. She then went into the house and asked Jason to bring out the car seat. Jason brought out the car seat and threw it on the embankment near the car. Nicole said she was upset and texted Jason; he told her to leave, but she insisted that the family leave together as she was the designated driver. Nicole also testified that in July 2023, after an argument about Jason’s time commitment to his older daughters’ travel sports, Jason locked her out of the house for about an hour, with P.H.; Nicole did not have her phone or shoes. Nicole testified that on April 6, 2024, while she was living in San Bernardino County, she texted Jason and sent him explicit photos of herself. Jason subsequently told her he would submit those photos to the court. On another occasion, he told her he would 11. provide the photos to the police. Nicole further testified that months later, in June 2024, Jason’s sister told Nicole she was crazy and said, “ ‘We seen the text and the photos. What, you think you are a porn star?’ ” Jason also testified about the texts and photos Nicole sent him on April 6, 2024. Nicole told him she had a dream about him and sent him explicit, nude photos of herself. He explained: “She Snapchatted me all day, hundreds and hundreds, I believe it was [April 6, 2024], videos and pictures and -- including [P.H.] awake and smiling, and it was very disturbing enough as it was, but that the fact that she had [P.H.] in these pictures awake and smiling at just shy of one years old was the most concerning part.” Jason said Nicole was doing sexual acts in the photos, with P.H. right there “wide awake and giggling.” Jason said he was bothered by seeing his “smiling 11-month-old” in that situation. He testified he saved “20 of the hundreds” of photos that Nicole sent him that day. Evidence at trial also revealed the parties had disputes over possession of their vehicles and ownership of a gun safe that Jason removed from the marital home. V. June 2024 Events: Jason Keeps P.H. For a Week; Nicole Requests a DVRO. Nicole’s duty station was Porterville, but she was permitted to telework or work remotely. After she moved to San Bernardino County in January 2024, from that point to the beginning of June 2024, she sometimes worked in Porterville, occasionally at the office and at times at the marital home. Jason was asked at trial: “And at any time after Nicole moved out of the marital residence, until she filed her request for domestic violence restraining order and obtained the initial [t]emporary [r]estraining [o]rder, did she bring [P.H.] to you and let you see her?” Jason responded: “So that was one of the issues I was having was [Nicole] would go a week or two weeks or even I think up to three weeks and disappear and then text with me. And then sometimes at her convenience would give me a couple hours [with 12. P.H.]. And I didn’t know what my legal rights were. She was threatening me with DVRO[s] constantly all the way back to October [2023].” Jason would tell Nicole that both parents should have equal time with P.H. Jason noted: “I believe that me and [Nicole] should both have access to our daughter .… That is a fundamental belief from my logic.” Nicole testified that because P.H. was breast feeding at the time, she did not want Jason to have P.H. for overnight periods. In June 2024, Jason told Nicole he wanted P.H. to stay with him for a week. Nicole testified: “On [June 1, 2024], Jason and I had been coordinating bringing [P.H.] up [to Porterville]. He said he wanted to keep her for a week. I said she was still … like, kind of breastfeeding, eating solids at this time, and I said I think that’s a long duration … for her first time away, so I had some apprehensions towards that. I told him I would stay the night [somewhere] if he wanted additional time[,] so that he can bring her after work the next day … and he was insistent on keeping her for a week.” Jason testified that there was no custody order in existence at the time, and he understood he also could have time with P.H. So, when he took P.H. from Nicole on June 2, 2024, he told Nicole he would keep P.H. for a couple of days. Jason added: “Well, [Nicole], within 20 minutes, had the Sheriff at my house. I live -- I live a little more rural so the Sheriffs came.” The next day, Jason’s sister watched P.H. while Jason went to work. Nicole sent the Porterville Police Department to Jason’s family’s house. Jason continued: “[Those] two days turned into more and [Nicole] kept calling the police on me, and I said we need to work out a custody agreement and it’s no problem, and she refused.” P.H. remained with Jason for about 10 days. Jason was asked how many wellness checks were initiated by Nicole over that period. He responded: “[I]f it wasn’t every day, it had to have been almost [every day], and not just to me. It was also to my sister … with Porterville PD [there] and the Sheriffs at my house.” Nicole told Jason she would have to get a court order to get P.H. back. 13.  Nicole testified that around June 11, 2024, she obtained a temporary restraining order and an order granting her custody of P.H. Jason thereafter handed P.H. over to Nicole. Nicole’s counsel asked Jason: “And isn’t it true that Nicole never sought a domestic violence restraining order until after you kept [P.H.] and refused to return her?” Jason answered: “Yeah. That’s true.” VI. Custody Issue. The evidence indicated that, with respect to physical custody of P.H., Jason was in favor of the child remaining in Porterville and both parents having an equal time share there. Nicole testified that she proposed that P.H. stay mostly with her in San Bernardino County, and “[t]he time with Jason would be every other weekend.” She added: “I’m open to negotiating time during breaks as well as holidays.” VII. Parties’ Closing Arguments. Nicole’s counsel argued in closing argument that the events of January 12, 2024— when Jason removed Nicole’s things from the bedroom and placed them in the living room, causing Nicole to sob—amounted to domestic violence. Counsel also pointed to texts exchanged that afternoon; he described Jason’s texts as “threats to publicly embarrass [Nicole], knowing that people were coming over.” In addition, counsel referred to the October 8, 2023, incident; he argued the entertainment center was damaged during that incident. Counsel also argued that the parties’ disputes over the ownership of the gun safe and possession of family vehicles were relevant to the DVRO issue. Finally, Nicole’s counsel alluded to the fact that Jason kept P.H. for several days in June 2024. Counsel stated: “[A]nd that was really the triggering event for [Nicole] to seek that restraining order.” Counsel added: “The remainder of much of the contentions and evidence is some of the natural difficulty that happens when relationships break up.” 14.  Jason’s counsel argued in his closing argument: “Your Honor, it’s obvious that [Nicole’s] request for DVRO wasn’t actually a request for DVRO. It was a way for her to get into court quickly and get custody of the child.” With respect to the October 8, 2023, incident, counsel argued: “[Nicole] claims there was a tremendously violent incident on October the 8th of 2023; however, she doesn’t deny that there were many texts back and forth from her to [Jason] trying to get … back together and expressing her love for him and so forth.” Counsel noted: “[Jason] was sitting close behind the table when he says that [Nicole] was making for his daughter in an apparently aggressive manner, he stood up in a hurry and put his hand out to keep her from getting to his daughter.” Counsel stated: “So I think credibility is one of the issues that the [c]ourt needs to deal with in this case and I don’t think that [Nicole’s] testimony regarding the October 8 incident is credible.” Regarding the January 15, 2024, incident, Jason’s counsel argued: “[Jason] obviously texted her that he thought she was going to be embarrassed, but … [i]t had to do with a party to which 50 people had been invited and she had caused it to be canceled.” Counsel continued: “Most people in a social setting would find that to be quite embarrassing, so I think it’s important that the evidence is that she lunged at my client on January 12th. He did nothing to defend himself other than to turn to one side, at which point she tripped and fell.” Counsel added: “Two witnesses testified to that, but if she was afraid of my client after January 12, she didn’t show it. She continued to send him texts trying to make up.” Meanwhile, “[Jason] immediately left the home and he didn’t return to the home until January 15th, three days later, when [Nicole] notified him that she had left.” Counsel pointed out that Nicole was using cameras she had set up to watch what was happening in the home. Jason’s counsel argued: “The party was [Jason’s] last straw. He was done … [so he] put [Nicole’s things] in the living room where she could be comfortable and he asked her to look for a place to rent. [¶] [Nicole’s] response was not to look for a place to rent 15. or not even try. Her response was to take [P.H.] in violation of [Jason’s] parental rights and drive 200 miles away to a remote town in San Bernardino and to keep her there for the next six months -- eight months actually. That’s the situation here. There was no domestic violence of [Jason] against [Nicole].” Jason’s counsel contended: “[Nicole’s counsel] hit it on the nose. The fact that [Jason] wanted some time with his child and wouldn’t give her back when [Nicole] demanded custody was the trigger … [¶] … [¶] It wasn’t because there was domestic violence. It’s because she could easily and quickly get a DVRO awarding her sole custody of the child, which is what happened.” VIII. Trial Court’s Ruling. The family court issued a written ruling following the trial. The court denied Nicole’s request for a DVRO against Jason. The court ruled: “In her [DVRO] request, [Nicole] testified that [Jason] committed acts of domestic violence when he intentionally tipped a coffee table over, knocked pictures off the wall, removed a gun safe and other furniture from the marital home, denied access to vehicles registered in his name, refused to return their child to her, removed her clothing from the bedroom after an argument and sent her a text saying she would ‘have a new problem.’ “[Jason] testified that he accidentally tipped the coffee table over trying to protect his daughter from [Nicole], who appeared to be attacking her. He denied knocking pictures off the wall. “The video submitted by [Nicole] showed that [Jason] was very calm and non-threatening in taking her clothing out of the bedroom and placing it in the living room [Nicole] was obviously very upset during the event. “Removing the gun safe and other property from the marital home and taking possession of vehicles in [Jason’s] name did not constitute any form of domestic violence. There is a dispute about ownership of the property that will have to be resolved during the trial on the dissolution of marriage unless the parties can reach an agreement. “Keeping the child did not constitute domestic violence. The parties have not been able to reach an amicable agreement about when the child 16.  will spend time with each parent, thus [there is a custody] order included below. “Although [Nicole] interpreted [Jason’s] texts that she would have a problem and be embarrassed as threats, a reasonable person would not consider them to be threats of harm other than being involved in a dispute over the issues of the marriage. “The evidence did not prove that [Jason] committed acts of domestic violence and [Nicole’s] request is denied.” Nicole appealed. DISCUSSION I. Standard of Review. “We review an order granting or denying a DVRO for abuse of discretion.” (M.S. v. A.S. (2022) 76 Cal.App.5th 1139, 1143.) “ ‘[A]n abuse of discretion occurs where “ ‘ “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.” ’ ” ’ ” (Ashby v. Ashby (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 491, 509 (Ashby).) “ ‘However, “[j]udicial discretion to grant or deny an application for a protective order is not unfettered. The scope of discretion always resides in the particular law being applied by the court, i.e., in the ‘ “legal principles governing the subject of [the] action.” ’ ” ’ ” (J.J. v. M.F. (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 968, 975; accord, S.M. v. E.P. (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1249, 1264–1265.) “ ‘[T]he question of “whether a trial court applied the correct legal standard to an issue in exercising its discretion is a question of law … requiring de novo review.” ’ ” (N.T. v. H.T. (2019) 34 Cal.App.5th 595, 601–602.) “In reviewing the trial court’s factual findings, we apply the substantial evidence rule.” (M.S. v. A.S., supra, 76 Cal.App.5th at p. 1143.) “The inquiry is whether substantial evidence supports the court’s finding, not whether a contrary finding might have been made.” (Id. at p. 1144.) “We accept as true all evidence tending to establish 17. the correctness of the trial court’s findings and resolve every conflict in favor of the judgment.” (Ibid.) “The trial court’s order ‘is presumed to be correct, and all intendments and presumptions are indulged to support it on matters as to which the record is silent. [Citation.] It is the appellant’s burden to affirmatively demonstrate error.’ ” (Ashby, supra, 68 Cal.App.5th at p. 509.) II. Domestic Violence Prevention Act (DVPA). The stated purpose of the DVPA (Fam. Code, §§ 6200–6460), is to “prevent acts of domestic violence [and] abuse” and “to provide for a separation of the persons involved in the domestic violence for a period sufficient to enable these persons to seek a resolution of the causes of the violence.” (§ 6220.) As relevant here, the DVPA defines domestic violence as “abuse” perpetrated against “[a] spouse or former spouse.” (§ 6211, subd. (a).) The DVPA defines the term “abuse” broadly. The definition includes conduct that “intentionally or recklessly cause[s] or attempt[s] to cause bodily injury”; “[s]exual assault”; and acts that “place a person in reasonable apprehension of imminent serious bodily injury to that person or to another.” (See § 6203, subd. (a)(1)–(3).) However, “[a]buse is not limited to the actual infliction of physical injury or assault.” (Id., subd. (b).) It also includes, among other things, “disturbing the peace of the other party.” (§§ 6203, subd. (a)(4), 6320, subd. (a).) “ ‘[D]isturbing the peace of the other party’ ” is defined as “conduct that, based on the totality of the circumstances, destroys the mental or emotional calm of the other party.” (§ 6320, subd. (c).) “This conduct may be committed directly or indirectly, including through the use of a third party, and by any method or through any means including, but not limited to, telephone, online accounts, text messages … or other electronic technologies.” (Ibid.) The DVPA authorizes courts to issue restraining orders based on “reasonable proof of a past act or acts of abuse.” (§ 6300, subd. (a).) The DVPA requires a showing 18. of past abuse by a preponderance of the evidence. (Cooper v. Bettinger (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 77, 79, fn. 14; Gdowski v. Gdowski (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 128, 137.) III. Nicole Has Not Shown That Family Court Applied Incorrect Standard. Nicole contends: “The trial court found Nicole’s peace was disturbed but erred in denying her DVRO request by improperly applying a reasonable person standard.” (Capitalization omitted.) Although her argument is somewhat confusing, Nicole appears to contend that (1) the family court made a finding that Nicole’s peace was disturbed and such a finding warrants issuance of a DVRO against Jason; and (2) to the extent the family court did not find that Nicole’s peace was disturbed, it applied an incorrect legal standard to the issue, rendering its decision to deny Nicole’s DVRO request an abuse of discretion. We disagree on both counts. A. Background. For purposes of her arguments, Nicole mainly focuses on the following part of the family court’s ruling: “Although [Nicole] interpreted [Jason’s] texts that she would have a problem and be embarrassed as threats, a reasonable person would not consider them to be threats of harm other than being involved in a dispute over the issues of the marriage.” Nicole also relies on the court’s statement in its ruling that when Jason moved her clothes out of their bedroom and into the living room, “she was obviously very upset during the event.” The parts of the family court’s ruling identified by Nicole, pertain to trial evidence about the events of January 12, 2024. January 12, 2024, was the day when Tar. H.’s birthday party was to be held at Jason and Nicole’s home but was abruptly canceled. Nicole had texted Jason while he was at work that day to complain that he and the girls did not lock the front door when they left the house that morning. Jason testified that Tay. H. was the last one out of the house that morning and had