J.S. v. D.A. (2026) 118 Cal.App.5th 891

The Court of Appeal reversed a five-year DVRO, holding the trial court abused its discretion by failing to ensure the incarcerated respondent’s meaningful access to the courts.  The petitioner sought a DVRO alleging prior physical abuse that resulted in respondent’s incarceration, as well as ongoing abusive communications from prison.  After being served, the respondent opposed the request, sought a continuance, and asked the court to order the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to facilitate his telephonic appearance at the evidentiary hearing.  Although the hearing was continued once, the trial court never addressed that request, conducted no custody check, and proceeded in respondent’s absence to issue the DVRO.  The appellate court held that indigent inmates facing bona fide civil proceedings that threaten their interests have a constitutional right to meaningful access to the courts, which may be satisfied through various means, including but not limited to remote appearance.  Because the record showed the respondent was incarcerated and had requested to appear telephonically, the trial court was required to assess the inmate’s indigency, determine whether his personal or property interests were implicated, and consider measures to ensure his meaningful participation in the DVRO proceeding.  Its failure to do so was reversible error.  The matter was remanded for a new hearing, with the TRO to remain in effect until at least 30 days after issuance of the remittitur. Neither party recovered costs on appeal.