In re Marriage of M.P. and M.C. (2025) 116 Cal.App.5th 1096

In this case, Wife requested a DVRO against Husband.  To support her request, Wife submitted a declaration stating that Wife’s child told her Husband had sexually abused the child.

At the evidentiary hearing, Wife testified about what the child told her about Husband’s sexual abuse. The child did not testify. After hearing the evidence, the trial court granted DVRO against Husband, finding that Husband’s acts disturbed Wife’s peace.

The husband appealed. One of the arguments Husband made on appeal was that the trial court made a mistake by relying on the child’s statements because the child did not testify in court.  He claimed that the statements were hearsay and should not have been used as proof of the abuse.

The Court of Appeal explained that the child’s out-of-court statements were being admitted for their truth because, to issue the order against Husband, the court had to find that Husband committed an act of abuse. The Court then determined that the child’s out-of- court statement was admissible to prove the abuse because the “child dependency hearsay exception” applied to DVRO cases.  Under the child dependency hearsay exception, a child’s out-of-court statement that describes abuse may be admitted for their truth. This is because it is difficult to prove child sexual abuse cases because there may be no physical evidence, children may have difficulty explaining what happened, and they may be afraid to testify. These same problems exists in domestic violence cases involving children, especially when the accused person is a parent or close family member.  Also, the DVPA, like dependency proceedings, purpose is to protect minors.

Before child’s out of court statement can be used, three requirements must be met to show the statements are “reliable.” First, when and how the statement was made, what it says, and the situation it was made in must all show that it can be trusted. Second, the child must either be available for cross-examination or there must be other evidence corroborating the statement. Third, the opposing party must receive adequate notice that the statements will be used in court.

The Court of Appeal also reviewed whether the trial court could rely on criminal charges filed against Husband as proof of the abuse.  The court ruled that criminal charges alone cannot be used to prove abuse occurred. While courts may consider past criminal convictions in certain situation, they may not treat pending criminal charges as evidence that abuse actually occurred.