Meraz

BACKGROUND

In the original filing, Meraz requested a domestic violence restraining order against Navarro and sought to protect herself, her child, and her mother. Relative to the mother, the request stated the mother “ha[d] given [her] a place to stay” and Navarro “hates [the mother] and has made the statement that he would beat her ass if she said anything to him.” The request was signed “under penalty of perjury ….” The matter proceeded to a hearing, and Meraz testified she was in an intimate relationship with Navarro. She explained the relationship turned physically abusive, with Navarro physically restraining her “[m]aybe ten or so times.” Navarro also testified, denying all abuse. The trial court ruled the “acts” testified to “clearly constitute[d] domestic violence ….” It subsequently granted “the request for the domestic violence restraining order … for a period of five years.” The order did not include the child, but did include the mother because Meraz resided with her.

DISCUSSION

Navarro raises four issues. One, was his constitutional right to an “impartial tribunal” violated? Two, did the trial court violate California Rules of Court, rule 2.818(a)(3)? Three, did…