• Skip to main content
  • Skip to footer

Family Violence Appellate Project

Giving survivors a second chance at justice

Giving survivors a second chance at justice Donate




En Español
用中文(表達
In English
  • Home
  • About Us
    • Our Programs
    • Who We Are
    • Annual Reports & Financials
    • Our Commitment to Race Equity
  • Survivor Stories
  • News
    • Announcements
    • Press Room
    • Battle of the Bands
  • Resources
    • California
      • FVAP Legal Resource Library – California
      • Cases You Can Use – California
      • Other Resources You Can Use – California
    • Washington
      • FVAP Legal Resource Library – Washington
      • Cases You Can Use – Washington
      • Other Resources You Can Use – Washington
    • National
  • Get Involved
    • Donate
      • Herma Hill Kay Memorial Fund
    • Volunteer
    • Clerks/Fellows
    • Job Openings
  • Contact Us

Featured Legal Victory on Unjust Mutual Restraining Orders

December 10, 2021 by FVAP

Abusers often seek restraining orders to further abuse or control survivors. When the trial court is deciding mutual requests for restraining orders, they cannot enter mutual restraining orders without first deciding that both parties are primary aggressors within the relationship, and that neither of them were acting in self-defense. The reason for this rule is that mutual domestic violence is very rare, and wrongful mutual restraining orders put the real victim of abuse at risk.

In FVAP’s K.L v. R.H. case, the Court of Appeal explained that the trial court made an error by considering the parties’ allegations separately. Instead, the trial court should weigh the acts of the parties against each other to decide which person was the most significant aggressor in the relationship, and whether either of them acted in self defense. In considering the case this way, the Court of Appeal rightly ruled that the opposing party was the most significant aggressor, and only he should have been restrained.

The trial court also made an error by relying on the survivor’s previous criminal conviction to issue a mutual restraining order against her because it was irrelevant since it did not relate to domestic violence or other serious violence. Particularly for Black women, like the survivor in this case, overpolicing and racial stereotypes result in criminal convictions. The limitations on what kinds of convictions can be used in domestic violence restraining order cases ensures that this racial bias doesn’t also result in wrongful mutual restraining orders.

FVAP litigated this case in collaboration with pro-bono co-counsel, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton, UCI School of Law Domestic Violence Clinic, and Legal Aid SoCal. The Court of Appeal then granted our request for publication.

Filed Under: announcements

Footer

Website Privacy

Policy here
California Office
Helpline: (510) 380-6243
Business line: (510) 858-7358
Email: info@fvaplaw.org

Washington Office
Direct line: (360) 680-1030
Email: infoWA@fvaplaw.org

Website By

Sign Up for Updates

Free, full-service interpretation & translation services available. Servicios gratuitos y completos de traducción e interpretación disponibles. 我们能够提供免费的翻译服务

We serve everyone regardless of immigration status. No rechazamos el servicio basado en el estado de inmigración. 無論您的移民身份如何,我們都將為您服務.

  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Twitter

COVID-19 update: While FVAP is open and our services continue to be available, as of March 9, 2020, in order to ensure the safety and well-being of clients and FVAP staff, we are meeting with visitors only by appointment until further notice. Our helpline is (510) 380-6243, and our business line is (510) 858-7358. You may also email us at info@fvaplaw.org.
Leave Site

Copyright Family Violence Appellate Project 2022