Cardona v. Soto

In this case, Soto requested a restraining order against Cardona for herself and the parties’ daughter.  At the hearing, both parties were self-represented. Daughter testified but the testimony occurred in chambers outside the presence of both Soto and Cardona and without a court reporter. After hearing daughter’s testimony, the trial court stated that it “was not going to talk to” the parties about what the trial court learned from the daughter except to say the trial court heard an audio recording daughter had taken of the incident where Cardona assaulted his current wife and it was “pretty awful.” The trial issued a one-year restraining order for Soto and the daughter. Cardona appealed, arguing “his was denied due process when the trial court held an unreported, in-chambers interview of daughter.”

Noting due process rights were heightened in this case because they concerned parental rights, the reviewing court also found Cardona was denied due process. Though the Court noted a minor’s testimony can be taken outside the presence of the parties, it found the trial court here failed to “apprise Cardona of” his daughter’s testimony or provide him with a meaningful opportunity to respond to the testimony. The case provides examples of safeguards that trial courts can implement, such as having a court reporter present in chambers during a minor’s testimony, to ensure parties may respond to the evidence.

Although the DVRO had expired by the time the appellate court made its decision, the appellate court still decided the issue, finding it was not “moot” (a legal term meaning the appellate court cannot do anything from a practical point of view, even if legal mistakes were made).  The appellate court said the appeal was not moot because the DVRO, though expired, still had a finding of DV that triggered the Family Code section 3044 presumption.