In Y.L. v. L.T., FVAP successfully co-counseled with Katten Muchin Rosenman, LLP to file an Amicus Brief in support of L.T. In this case Y.L., the abusive party, filed an appeal after the trial court denied his request for a reciprocal domestic violence restraining order (DVRO) against L.T. On appeal Y.L. argued that there should be a bright-line rule that when someone reacts to emotional abuse with physical violence that person should be deemed a “primary aggressor” and a DVRO should be entered against them. The appellate court rejected Y.L.’s argument. The appellate court noted that, in mutual restraining order cases, 1) the trial court must determine which party is the most significant aggressor based on factors listed in Penal Code section 836 subd. (c)(3) and 2) the court must “consider the parties’ alleged acts of domestic violence in concert, and not separately” to determine whether someone is a primary aggressor. Our Amicus Brief addressed 1) how gender bias helps perpetuate erroneous primary-aggressor and self-defense determinations; 2) the detrimental effects of mutual-restraining orders on survivors, and 3) the need for courts to conduct detailed analysis in mutual restraining order cases to account for the history of abuse in the relationship and avoid inherent bias and stereotypes in domestic violence situations.