When will a court order a modification to a restraining order that would have allowed appellant to contact respondent by phone?

Even accepting that the trial court had the authority to modify the prior restraining order, a point appellant's brief provides no authority for and the trial court believed it could not do, any modification, like any order terminating the restraining order, would require appellant to show by a preponderance of the evidence that such action was appropriate. (See Loeffler v. Medina, supra, 174 Cal.App.4th at p. 1504.) With respect to modifying the communication language, the trial court reviewed its prior order and determined the language both correctly stated its intent and remained appropriate. We see no abuse of discretion on this point. While appellant contends that phone contact was necessary because respondent was taking too long to respond to written requests, there is no indication in the record that this communication was affecting the litigation and, even if it were, appellant would have had an opportunity to redress those problems by raising them with the trial court. Moreover, upon review of appellant's arguments, we see no evidence that the language chosen by the court was improperly vague or improper given

Page 11

the situation. Accordingly, we find no error in its discretionary determination that it would not modify the order.