DISCUSSION

A DVRO “may be renewed, upon the request of a party, either for five or more years, or permanently, at the discretion of the court, without a showing of further abuse since the issuance of the original order.” (§ 6345,

“posts,” and “status” that the court and parties were discussing content Michael posted to social media, but it is unclear. 3 subd. (a).) A request for a renewal should be granted where “the protected party entertains a reasonable apprehension of future abuse.” (Michael M. v. Robin J. (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 170, 179.) “[T]his does not mean the court must find it is more likely than not future abuse will occur if the protective order is not renewed. It only means the evidence demonstrates it is more probable than not there is a sufficient risk of future abuse to find the protected party’s apprehension is genuine and reasonable.” (Ritchie v. Konrad (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 1275, 1290.) In making this determination, “the trial judge ordinarily should consider the evidence and findings on which that initial order was based in appraising the risk of future abuse should the existing order expire.” (Ibid.) Also potentially relevant are any significant changes in the circumstances under which the initial order was granted and any perceived burdens imposed by the DVRO on the restrained party. (Id. at p. 1291.) We generally review a ruling on a DVRO renewal request for abuse of discretion. (Perez v. Torres-Hernandez (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 389, 396.) In reviewing the trial court’s factual findings, we apply a substantial evidence standard of review. (Loeffler v. Medina (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 1495, 1505.) This standard is “generally considered the most difficult standard of review to meet, as it should be, because it is not the function of the reviewing court to determine the facts.” (In re Michael G. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 580, 589.) Michael cannot meet this standard, because his failure to provide a complete record on appeal precludes a finding of error. (Foust v. San Jose Construction Co., Inc. (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 181, 186–187 (Foust) [“ ‘Failure to provide an adequate record on an issue requires that the issue be resolved against [appellant].’ ”]; Gonzalez v. Rebollo (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 969, 977 [“Without a complete record, we are unable to determine whether substantial

4 evidence supported the implied findings underlying the trial court’s order.”].) This “follows from the cardinal rule of appellate review that a judgment or order of the trial court is presumed correct and prejudicial error must be affirmatively shown.” (Foust, at p. 187, citing Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564.) It is Michael’s burden as the appellant to make this showing. (Foust, at p. 187; see also Elena S. v. Kroutik (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 570, 574 (Elena S.) [“ ‘It is well settled, of course, that a party challenging a judgment [or order] has the burden of showing reversible error by an adequate record.’ ”].) In the absence of such a showing in the record, we must make all presumptions in favor of the trial court’s action. (Foust, at p. 187.) Michael is not exempt from these rules of appellate review merely because he is self-represented. (See Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1246–1247.) Here, the minute order from the evidentiary hearing indicates that before issuing the DVRO renewal order, the trial court heard the testimony of Michael and I.M. and reviewed documents lodged by both parties. However, the record on appeal does not contain a reporter’s transcript or settled statement. Nor does it contain any of the documents reviewed by the trial court. In other words, although Michael contends the court abused its discretion and there was insufficient evidence to support the DVRO renewal, he has provided us with none of the evidence presented to the court. “Without a reporter’s transcript or the exhibits presented at [the hearing] we cannot undertake a meaningful review of [Michael]’s argument on appeal.” (Foust, supra, 198 Cal.App.4th at p. 187.) Instead, we “must presume the trial court acted properly.” (Elena S., supra, 247 Cal.App.4th at p. 576 [affirming DVRO where appellant failed to provide transcript of relevant oral

5 proceedings in trial court].) We therefore conclude that the trial court did not err in granting I.M.’s request to renew the DVRO against Michael.

DISPOSITION

The order is affirmed. Michael is to bear his own costs on appeal.

BUCHANAN, J.

WE CONCUR:

DO, Acting P. J.

CASTILLO, J.

6