Vanesyan

I. INTRODUCTION

Maxim Aperian (Maxim) appeals from an order denying his request for order (RFO)1 to modify or terminate a permanent restraining order against him. We affirm.

II. BACKGROUND

A. Permanent Restraining Order

Maxim and petitioner Larisa Vanesyan (Larisa) were married until their divorce in 2013. On May 19, 2011, Larisa filed a petition for a domestic violence restraining order protecting her from Maxim; and, on August 9, 2011, the trial court granted the order, which was set to expire in two years. Larisa subsequently requested that the restraining order be made permanent. (Fam. Code2, § 6345, subd. (a).) On June 27, 2013, the trial court renewed the restraining order against Maxim and ordered it be permanent. (See In re Marriage of L.A. & M.A. (B289451, Apr. 15, 2020) [nonpub. opn.].) Among other things, the restraining order required that Maxim stay at least 100 yards away from Larisa’s home, vehicle, job or workplace, and their children’s school.

“In family law proceedings under the Family Code, the term ‘request for order’ (RFO) ‘has the same meaning as the terms “motion” or “notice of motion” when used in the Code of Civil Procedure.’ (Cal.…