In re A.P. et. al.

This is the first case to state several principles from the Domestic Violence Prevention Act (family code) apply to the issuance of juvenile restraining orders under the Welfare & Institutions Code Section 213.5. Here, Mother requested a restraining order against Father because he had grabbed her head, pushed her to the ground, and hit her minor child.  The restraining order request was filed in the juvenile court because the parties were involved in a dependency proceeding. The trial court issued a temporary restraining order which Father subsequently violated by having contact with Mother.

Despite the juvenile court finding Father committed domestic violence against Mother and one of Mother’s children it denied Mother’s request for a restraining order. The trial court found “that the parents living separately had accomplished the same result a restraining order would” and then orally ordered both parents “not to visit together” and to stay away from each other.

On appeal, the appellate court held (1) violations of restraining orders in cases of domestic violence are abuse in both juvenile and family court, (2) juvenile courts cannot deny a restraining order request because the parties are no longer living together, and (3) courts may not issue a non-CLETS “stay-away” order instead of a restraining order because it does not give a survivor “legal protection through immediate enforcement by police.”

Statutes used or affected: Welfare & Inst Code sections 300 and 213.5, subds. (a), (c)(5), (d), (h), & (j); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.630(a); Family Code sections 6200, 6203 subd. (a)(4), 6300, 6308, 6340.