DISCUSSION

I. We conclude that A.P.’s contention that the court erred by issuing a three-month DVRO has been rendered moot by A.P. seeking and obtaining a renewal of the DVRO for a period of five years. (Finnie v. Town of Tiburon (1988) 199 Cal.App.3d 1, 10 [“an action which originally was based upon a justiciable controversy cannot be maintained on appeal if the questions raised therein have become moot by subsequent acts or events”].) “Appellate courts generally will neither decide controversies that are moot nor render decisions on abstract propositions. [Citations.] ‘A case is moot when the decision of the reviewing court “can have no practical impact or provide the parties effectual relief. [Citation.]” [Citation.] “When no effective relief can be granted, an appeal is moot and will be dismissed.” ’ ” (Steiner v. Superior Court (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 1479, 1485.) A.P.’s contentions have been rendered moot by the expiration of the first DVRO and the issuance of the five-year DVRO. (See O’Kane v. Irvine (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 207, 210, fn. 4 [“[the] appeal from the TRO, following the trial court’s grant of the three-year restraining order, is moot”].)

II.

The standard of review governing a court’s issuance of a DVRO is abuse of discretion. (In re Marriage of Nadkarni (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 1483, 1495; Burquet v. Brumbaugh (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 1140.) An abuse of discretion occurs when the ruling exceeds the bounds of reason. (Lister v.

renewing a restraining order is objective. (Lister v. Bowen (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 319, 332; Ritchie v. Konrad (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 1275, 1290.) “A trial court should renew the protective order, if, and only if, it finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the protected party entertains a ‘reasonable apprehension’ of future abuse.” (Ritchie, at p. 1290.) 3 Bowen (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 319, 333.) “ ‘The appellant bears the burden of showing a trial court abused its discretion.’ ” (Chalmers v. Hirschkop (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 289, 299.) A party challenging a judgment has the burden on appeal to provide an adequate record to assess error. (Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1140-1141.) The court articulated specific reasons for not including the minor child in the DVRO. A.P. has not presented any reasoned argument explaining why the court’s ruling was an abuse of discretion. “Error must be affirmatively shown by the record and will not be presumed on appeal [citation]; the validity of the judgment on its face may be determined by looking only to the matters constituting part of the judgment roll [citation]; where no error appears on the face of a judgment roll record, all intendments and presumptions must be in support of the judgment [citations]; the sufficiency of the evidence to support the findings is not open to consideration by a reviewing court [citation]; and any condition of facts consistent with the validity of the judgment will be presumed to have existed rather than one which would defeat it.” (Brockway v. Heilman (1967) 250 Cal.App.2d 807, 810; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.163.)

4

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed. Each party is to bear its costs on appeal.

O’ROURKE, J.

WE CONCUR:

McCONNELL, P. J.

IRION, J.

5