Misc

The court erred when it dismissed a Domestic Violence Restraining Order (DVRO) petition based on docket management concerns. G.E. requested a DVRO against I.D. based on physical and emotional abuse of her and their child. She estimated a two-day trial. G.E. presented credible evidence of abuse during her testimony. When the hearing was not completed by the end of the second day, the court asked I.D. not to violate the Domestic Violence Protection Act (DVPA), found there was not a reasonable probability of future violence, and dismissed G.E.’s petition. G.E. appealed and the reviewing court reversed. While a court has…

The court erred by failing to consider indirect contact when considering the issuance of a Domestic Violence Restraining Order (DVRO). Former boyfriend and girlfriend R.M. and A.G. filed for mutual DVROs. A.G. presented evidence that R.M. had called her mother and disparaged A.G. Additionally, R.M. had posted intimate photos of her as his profile picture on social media and changed his username to taunting and sexually demeaning phrases. The court granted R.M.’s request for a DVRO, but denied A.G.’s because R.M. had not contacted A.G. since the end of the relationship. A.G. appealed and the reviewing court reversed. Family Code…

The court erred in failing to set aside a voluntary declaration of parentage (VDOP) where biological mother was married to another man at the time of the birth of the child. Priscilla and Steven signed a VDOP that they were the parents of Stella in the days after her birth. When Steven filed a petition for custody two years later, Priscilla moved to set aside the VDOP because she was married to Gianni at the time the VDOP was signed. The court denied the motion, finding that the marriage was not valid because Priscilla and Gianna were not living together…

The court erred in ordering mutual Domestic Violence Restraining Orders (DVROs) where the evidence did not support that Marcie was a primary aggressor. Michael and Marcie requested mutual DVROs. Michael had repeatedly used a tracking device to monitor Marcie’s movements, appeared uninvited at her home and refused to leave, and accessed her digital devices without permission. Marcie had retrieved items from their previously shared home without permission, looked into Michael’s new car while it was parked at the gym, and attended a party at the same complex where Michael was occupying their beach home. The court issued mutual restraining orders.…

The court abused its discretion when it held a Domestic Violence Restraining Order (DVRO) evidentiary hearing in incarcerated D.A.’s absence without considering options to provide him access to the court. J.S. requested a DVRO protecting her from D.A., who was in prison. The court set an evidentiary hearing and D.A. said he would like to participate telephonically. The court held the hearing in D.A.’s absence without conducting a custody check or attempting to provide D.A. access to the hearing, and issued a five-year DVRO. D.A. appealed and the reviewing court reversed and remanded for a hearing. Indigent inmates who are…

The child dependency hearsay exception applies in Domestic Violence Prevention Act (DVPA) proceedings based on the sexual abuse of a minor. M.P. filed for dissolution of marriage to M.C. and requested a permanent domestic violence restraining order (DVRO) based on claims that M.C. had sexually abused her 13-year-old daughter, K.R. At the evidentiary hearing, M.C. objected to the admission of K.R.’s statements in M.P.’s declaration as hearsay. K.R. did not testify at the hearing. The court issued the DVRO and granted M.P. full legal and physical custody of their child. M.C. appealed and the reviewing court affirmed with a partial…

An intent to threaten or intimidate is not required to issue a domestic violence restraining order (DVRO). R. and C. are divorced and shared one child. C. began experiencing a decline in her mental health, which resulted in R. being awarded full physical custody of the child. R. filed for a DVRO claiming that C. had, due to her mental health issues, been following him and their child in her car, showing up at their home uninvited and then refusing to leave, and otherwise harassing and threatening C. and his family members. The trial court declined to issue a DVRO,…

A Domestic Violence Restraining Order (DVRO) renewal is for a five-year minimum period. A.H. was granted a one-year DVRO in conjunction with the dissolution of her marriage to S.H. About five years later, A.H. requested another DVRO against S.H. and was granted a nine-month DVRO. Just prior to the expiration of the nine-month DVRO, A.H. filed a request to renew it. The trial court ordered another nine-month DVRO, over the objection of A.H., finding that it had the discretion to order a DVRO for a period less than five years. A.H. appealed and the reviewing court reversed. The plain language…

Section 213.5, subdivision (a) vests the juvenile court with authority to issue restraining order against a dependent child. Teenage Minor and Mother had a difficult relationship, which included verbal threats and physical assaults by both parties. Mother was no longer willing to care for Minor and Minor became a dependent. Following a bomb threat made by Minor, Mother requested a restraining order protecting her from Minor, which the juvenile court issued. Minor appealed and the reviewing court affirmed. Despite the termination of the restraining order during the pendency of the appeal, the court exercised its discretion to consider the appeal…

The family court erred by relying solely on the parties’ stipulated agreement to joint custody to find that the Family Code (FC) section 3044 presumption had been rebutted. In 2021, the family court found that Father had perpetrated domestic violence against Mother. The court then awarded joint legal custody pursuant to the parties’ agreement, despite the FC 3044 presumption. In 2023, Mother requested modification of the custody agreement. No evidence was presented that Father had engaged in any services. The trial court found that the FC 3044 presumption had been rebutted and that the current joint custody agreement remained in…