Bobkoff

DISCUSSION

We review protective orders issued under the Act for abuse of discretion and factual findings supporting the order for substantial evidence. (Bookout v. Nielsen (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 1131, 1137.) “[W]e will only find an abuse of discretion when the trial court exceeds the bounds of reason or disregards the uncontradicted evidence.” (Id. at pp. 1140.) We resolve all conflicts in the evidence in favor of the prevailing party and construe all legitimate and reasonable inferences in favor of upholding the trial court’s findings. (Id. at pp. 1137-1138.) Evidentiary Contentions Appellant contends the trial court erred by allowing respondents to testify in a narrative manner and by admitting extensive hearsay evidence. She did not raise the former issue below. The argument is forfeited. (Evid. Code, § 353, subd. (a).) Even if it were not, appellant cannot demonstrate prejudice. She testified in the narrative as well. The court tolerated appellant’s own forays into hearsay and ruled promptly on her oral objections. We presume the court considered only relevant and admissible evidence. (Id., § 664.)

4 Elder Abuse Act Contentions Appellant cites the Act’s preamble sections as…