Announcements

Our client’s restraining order request was denied because the trial court did not believe that what happened to her — multiple calls to law enforcement and child welfare with no legitimate purpose except to harass and control her — was abuse under California law. The court of appeal agreed with our client that those were acts of abuse. Even though people generally have a first amendment right to contact law enforcement, that right does not protect harassing abusive behavior.

Thanks to our co-counsel at Crowell & Moring, and our stellar law clerk Kaumron Eidgahy who helped prepare co-counsel for oral argument and worked on our publication request.

Unpublished (pending court rule as of 10/11/2023)

Christopher U. appealed from a restraining order that protected his spouse Parris J. One provision of the restraining order required Christopher to change the beneficiary of a large life insurance policy he held on Parris’s life to a charity of her choice for as long as the restraining order was in effect, because Parris said the fact that Christopher would have significant financial gain if she died disturbed her peace, which is one definition of abuse under California law. Christopher challenged this provision, and the court of appeal confirmed that trial courts do have the authority to order this type of relief in a restraining order. The trial court also found Christopher’s actions that caused Parris to be financially dependent were part of a pattern of coercive control, which is also abuse under California law. We are grateful to our co-counsel Goodwin Procter, and to the many domestic violence organizations that filed an amicus (friend of the court) brief in this case to help the court of appeal understand coercive controlling abuse.

FVAP Co-counsel with Goodwin Procter.

In partnership with Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Domestic Violence Legal Empowerment and Appeals Project, Stopping Domestic Violence, California Protective Parents Association, Center for Domestic Peace, Sanctuary for Families, The National Family Violence Law Center at George Washington University Law School, the Law Foundation of Silicon Valley, California Women’s Law Center, Community Overcoming Relationship Abuse, Los Angeles Center for Law and Justice, and Women Lawyers Association of Los Angeles.

Published Opinion

Client successfully appealed the denial of her Domestic Violence Restraining Order (DVRO).  At her last hearing, following nearly two years of pandemic and other continuances, the trial court offered the survivor an opportunity to agree to an ongoing temporary restraining order (TRO).  This would not be a finding of domestic violence and would not have the same protections as a domestic violence restraining order after hearing.  When she refused, the trial court found she did not have “a reasonable fear of future abuse” and denied the DVRO request. That is the standard to renew a restraining order, not grant an initial DVRO. The trial court also failed to find that the other party in the case had violated the TRO despite undisputed evidence that the other party had contacted her to threaten and intimidate her.  FVAP and Barnes & Thornburg co-counseled on an amicus brief supported by 22 other organizations and individuals. The brief discussed the problematic trend of multiple continuances and the false premise that a temporary order had the same protections as a final order after hearing. The brief also discussed common protective parenting practices of survivors who put themselves at risk not because they are not afraid but because it is safer for their children to be present.  The Court of Appeal reversed and sent the matter back to the trial court.  It ruled that the trial court erred by not finding that the other party’s violations of the TRO were abuse, when in fact they were, explicitly meeting the client’s burden of proof for receiving a domestic violence restraining order.

FVAP co-counseled with Barnes & Thornburg, LLP and were proud to support the appeal brought by Community Legal Aid SoCal.

Amicus and Opinion Unpublished

Michael M. v. Robin J. (Published) – Survivor’s Retaliatory or Angry Motives for Renewing a DVRO Does Not Mean There is Not a Genuine Fear of Future Abuse

The survivor asked the trial court to renew her domestic violence restraining order because her former boyfriend had physically attacked her 5 months after the initial DVRO was issued, violated the DVRO by texting her directly instead of using the Talking Parent platform, physically abused the parties’ minor child, and refused to pay child support. Despite this evidence, the trial court denied the survivor’s request to renew her DVRO because there had been no violations of the DVRO in the “past several years” and it believed the survivor’s fear of her former boyfriend was not credible because it found that there were other circumstances that led to the survivor filing the request. The appellate court reversed and renewed the survivor’s DVRO. The appellate court concluded that the trial court was wrong to 1) require the survivor to show evidence of a recent act of abuse or a recent violation of the DVRO, 2) determine that an “unquestionably violation” of the DVRO was not “really” a violation, and 3) “infer a retaliatory motive from the mere timing of [the survivor’s] renewal request” and reject her claim of fear of future abuse on that basis alone. Significantly, the appellate court noted “anger and fear are not mutually exclusive” so even if the survivor did have a retaliatory motive for asking the court to renew her restraining order this did not negate her reasonable fear of future abuse.

FVAP is thankful to have co-counseled this matter with Covington & Burling, LLP.

The appellate court’s published opinion can be found here.