Davis

BACKGROUND

We first note that because Melonie has not filed a respondent’s brief, we may accept as true the facts stated in Mary’s opening brief. (Smith v. Smith (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 1074, 1077; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.220(a)(2).) However, Mary still bears the “affirmative burden to show error whether or not the respondent’s brief has been filed,” and we “examine the record and reverse only if prejudicial error is found.” (Smith, at p. 1078.) In January 2013,2 Melonie filed a petition for a temporary restraining order (TRO) and injunction to prevent Mary from harassing her or her two teenagers, contacting them by telephone, or coming within 300 yards of her home, vehicle, and workplace. In support of the petition, Melonie averred that Mary, who lives in Oklahoma, had been harassing her by sending dozens of hostile text messages from multiple cell phones. On January 29, the court issued a TRO and set the matter for hearing. In her response, Mary did not deny engaging in the harassing conduct. She attached 15 pages of transcribed text messages exchanged between her and Melonie from January 24 to 29. She disagreed with the issuance of an injunction, however, claiming Melonie…