N.I.

BACKGROUND

In July 2017, the trial court issued a DVRO protecting respondent, her minor children, and her parents from appellant (her brother). Respondent subsequently petitioned the trial court to renew that DVRO. Appellant opposed the petition. On October 21, 2020, the trial court heard argument on respondent’s petition. Both parties appeared in propria persona and both parties testified. Respondent’s husband testified on her behalf and numerous family members testified on behalf of appellant. A single exhibit was admitted into evidence.

1 At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court ruled: “the Court does find [respondent’s] testimony credible. I find much of what was testified on the [appellant’s] side . . . as not necessarily pertinent to the central question today. [¶] I will also note that what was testified to as -- on the [appellant’s] -- in the [appellant’s] case is contradicted by previous court rulings after taking -- after the taking of evidence, in fact, in this -- I’ll just say general matter. So based on that and based on the testimony I’ve heard and the documents submitted, I will renew the restraining order.” The trial court renewed the DVRO for five…