M.H.

I.

BACKGROUND

In 2016, T.N. obtained a two-year domestic violence restraining order (DVRO) against M.H., her former romantic partner and the father of her child. In 2018, T.N. requested, and was granted a five-year extension of the

DVRO.

In January 2023, T.N. filed a petition seeking a further extension of the DVRO. The trial court set a hearing for February 14, 2023. At the February hearing, M.H. requested and was granted a continuance. Neither party filed another request for continuance nor indicated to the court that they intended to call third-party witnesses. At the continued hearing on March 13, 2023, T.N. and M.H. both appeared through counsel. M.H. asked the court for a further continuance, stating he “would like to do a little more discovery in this case.” He also said he intended to “bring in the child monitor . . . and possibly some other witnesses to go through the discovery process, to do a little more discovery.” The trial court denied his request. The court explained that its analysis was governed by California Rules

of Court, rule 5.113.2 Under rule 5.113(b), when determining whether to permit live testimony, a court must consider “[w]hether a substantive…