Soukhaseum

DISCUSSION

Soukhaseum argues the court misapplied the statutory definition of “abuse” in analyzing her DVRO request. (See Fam. Code, § 6203 [defining abuse for purposes of DVRO].)2 According to Soukhaseum, the court “focus[ed] primarily on physical injury [and] minimiz[ed] non‑physical acts” that, in her view, constitute abuse under section 6203. Nothing in the reporter’s transcript or minute order suggests the court took such an approach. Nor does Soukhaseum provide record support suggesting it did. The court did not apply “ ‘ “incorrect legal assumptions.” ’ ” (In re Marriage of D.S. & A.S. (2023) 87 Cal.App.5th 926, 933.)

2 All further statutory references are to the Family Code.

3 Soukhaseum next argues the court erred by “fail[ing] to accord proper weight to” the “undisputed facts” that Gido threatened Soukhaseum with a knife in 2023 and grabbed the steering wheel while Soukhaseum was driving during the July 7, 2024 incident. Soukhaseum argues that these actions, particularly considered in the context of Gido’s “sustained verbal attacks[ ] and economic control,” compel the conclusion that Gido abused Soukhaseum by disturbing her peace within the meaning of sections 6320…