Background
In August 2024, S.K., then 84, petitioned under Welfare and Institutions Code section 15657.03 for an elder abuse restraining order against her son, Brett Graham, alleging he had stolen $8.4 million. Graham responded that nothing had been stolen, that he had borrowed funds at his mother's suggestion after surgery, and that his sister had authored the petition contrary to his mother's wishes. At a November 4, 2024 hearing, Graham stipulated that between February 2018 and February 2024 he made 101 withdrawals from his mother's account totaling $8,427,000, said he spent most of it on 'life,' and confirmed he had repaid none of it. S.K. testified she had given Graham access to pay her rent, acknowledged loaning him some money, but denied loaning him $8.4 million.
Because S.K.'s first-hearing testimony showed ambivalence about the order, the trial court continued the matter and appointed attorney Mark Ross as her guardian ad litem (GAL); neither party objected, and Graham said he was 'happy to cooperate.' The GAL's November 26, 2024 report recommended an injunction for the maximum period. At a December 2, 2024 hearing, the GAL testified S.K. told him she wanted no contact with Graham even if he repaid her, and that her earlier testimony differed because the hearing was frightening. S.K. testified she never told Graham he could take all her money, denied her daughter controlled her, and sought the order because 'it's so frightening.'
The trial court found Graham committed financial elder abuse, issued a five-year restraining order, and ordered him to reimburse S.K. $8.4 million, making an express Evidence Code section 780 credibility finding that Graham was not credible and S.K. was credible. Graham, in pro per, appealed and filed motions for vacatur and dismissal, to augment the record, for judicial notice, and for leave to file a reply.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal affirmed. Reviewing the order for abuse of discretion and the findings for substantial evidence, the court held Graham had not shown an abuse of discretion in the financial elder abuse finding. He stipulated to withdrawing $8.4 million and admitted spending most of it, yet his briefs never cited the statutory elements of financial elder abuse under section 15610.30. The court accepted the trial court's credibility findings, reversible only if the testimony is incredible on its face or inherently improbable.
The court rejected or found forfeited Graham's other arguments. It declined to consider a declaration and an 'AI-assisted forensic analysis' attached to his briefs because they were not in the appellate record or permitted by rule 8.204(d). It found no due process violation in the GAL's role: the court heard testimony from the GAL, Graham, S.K., and her daughter and made its own credibility findings, so there was no 'adjudication by proxy.' It rejected the fraud-on-the-court theory based on the daughter completing the petition, noting the court heard S.K. testify directly, and held the court need not rule on the motion to terminate the temporary restraining order before hearing the petition.
The court held Graham's challenge to the GAL's appointment forfeited twice over: he failed to designate the November 4, 2024 minute order and the appointment order for the record, and he failed to object below, instead saying he was happy to cooperate. It also denied his motion for vacatur and dismissal, his motions to augment with documents never before the trial court, his judicial notice request, and his application for leave to file a reply, explaining that augmentation and judicial notice cannot add materials not before the trial court when it ruled.
Key Takeaways
- A stipulation withdrawing $8.4 million from an elderly parent's account, plus an adverse credibility finding, amply supported the financial elder abuse restraining order, particularly where the appellant's briefs never cited the statutory elements of financial elder abuse.
- Self-represented appellants face the same briefing standards as attorneys; arguments without proper headings, developed analysis, or citations are forfeited.
- Failing to object to a guardian ad litem's appointment—and instead expressing willingness to cooperate—forfeits the challenge on appeal.
- Materials attached to an appellate brief but never presented to the trial court, including a declaration and an AI-assisted signature analysis, will not be considered.
- Augmentation and judicial notice cannot add materials that were not before the trial court when it issued the order under review.
Why It Matters
The opinion illustrates California appellate review of elder abuse restraining orders: abuse-of-discretion review of the order, substantial-evidence review of findings, and near-conclusive deference to credibility determinations. It confirms that a protected party's early ambivalence does not defeat an order where the court, aided by a GAL, later finds she genuinely wants protection.
It also underscores enforcement of appellate defaults—forfeiture of undeveloped arguments, refusal of extra-record attachments, and denial of augmentation and judicial notice for post-order materials—and the court flagged the appellant's fabricated quotations and mischaracterized holdings.
Read the full opinion (PDF) · Court docket