Family Violence Appellate Project

Giving survivors a second chance at justice

Giving survivors a second chance at justice Donate




En Español
用中文（表達
In English

Announcements

California Legal Victory! Vinson v. Kinsey – Denial of DVRO

by

Vinson v. Kinsey – Survivor’s Ongoing Contact With the Person Who is Abusive Does Not Mean Abuse Did Not Happen

In Vinson v. Kinsey, the survivor asked the trial court for a domestic violence restraining order because her ex-partner physically abused her and threatened to kill her. In addition to her declaration, the survivor provided the court with six written declarations from witnesses to verbal abuse and/or her physical injuries. The survivor also gave the court copies of text messages where her ex-partner admitted that he had threatened to kill her and admitted to hitting her in the past. Despite this evidence, the trial court denied the survivor’s request for a restraining order, concluding that the survivor was not “concerned” about her ex-partner’s “comment that he would kill her” because she continued to have contact with him. The appellate court overturned the trial court’s decision to deny the restraining order and sent the case back for the trial court to decide whether a restraining order should be issued. The appellate court explained that threats do not need to be threats of violence to constitute abuse under California law. The appellate court further noted that “other aspects of the trial court’s ruling [were] also troubling,” namely that the trial court wrongly focused on the survivor’s continued contact with her ex-partner. In doing this, the trial court “effectively imposed on [her] a singular vision of how an abused woman should act” when “[all] women exposed to violence and abuse . . . do not respond similarly.” FVAP successfully co-counseled this matter with Latham & Watkins, LLP.

FVAP is thankful to have co-counseled with Latham & Watkins, LLP on this matter.

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

CA Legal Victory! Hatley v. Southard – Reversal of DVRO Denial

by

In this case, our client, Jennifer Hatley, requested a DVRO against and spousal support from her estranged husband, James Southard.  Despite Jennifer alleging a pattern of coercive control, including financial control, emotional and verbal abuse, taking her car and phone, and even some physical abuse, the trial court denied Jennifer’s DVRO request.  The court also refused to let Jennifer testify to sexual abuse, which she alleged only in a supplemental declaration without giving details.  Finally, the court failed to rule on Jennifer’s request for spousal support, effectively denying it; Jennifer, representing herself at trial, did not know to press the issue.

The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s decision and sent it back for a new hearing on both the support request and the DVRO, concluding Jennifer’s allegations, if true, would meet the “broad” DVPA definition of abuse, especially as amended by 2020’s Senate Bill 1141, which clarified that DVPA abuse includes, among other things, coercive control.  The trial court also must consider Jennifer’s allegations of sexual abuse, as those were properly raised in her supplemental declaration.  Plus, the Court confirmed, even if a DVRO is denied, trial courts still have to rule on a support request.  Finally, the Court recognized that if Jennifer again represents herself, the trial court would have to take a more active role in making sure she can properly present her case.  FVAP co-counseled this case with Morrison Foerster, with amicus support from California Women’s Law Center and Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP, who successfully requested publication.

The court’s published opinion can be found here.

CA Legal Victory! T.W. v. M.S. Child Support Appeal

by

In 2018, our client T.W. got a domestic violence restraining order against the father of the parties’ child, M.S. Months later, T.W. was awarded child support at almost $500 per month. Since that time, M.S. continued filing frivolous and harassing litigation, even after being declared a vexatious litigant. In 2022, even though he did not get pre-filing permission as a vexatious litigant, M.S. was allowed to file a request to reduce his child support obligations and have T.W. pay him instead. The court did not grant M.S.’s request for T.W. to pay him, but it reduced his support obligation to T.W. to only $1 per month by using M.S.’s professed monthly income of $75 per month, even though the court twice found that amount “not credible.” With the help of Fenwick & West LLP, FVAP successfully appealed this decision, reversing the reduction of child support to T.W.

The court’s unpublished opinion can be found here.

CA Legal Victory! T.W. v. M.S. DVRO Renewal Appeal

by

In 2018, our client T.W. got a three-year domestic violence restraining order (DVRO) against the father of their child, M.S.  While T.W.’s DVRO was in place, T.W.’s trial attorney also got a workplace violence restraining order against M.S., and M.S. was declared a vexatious litigant for his continuous harassing and frivolous litigation against T.W.  In 2021, the court denied T.W.’s request to renew her DVRO.  We appealed, with the help of Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP, and the Court of Appeal agreed with us that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the renewal because all of the relevant factors supported renewing T.W.’s DVRO against M.S.  The Court reversed and remanded, sending the case back to the trial court with instructions to grant the renewal and just determine whether to renew T.W.’s DVRO for five or more years, or permanently, under subdivision (a) of Family Code section 6345.

The court’s unpublished opinion can be found here.

CA Legal Vicory! Renee A. v. Robert A.

by

In this case, our client (Renee) had a child with the opposing party (Robert) after dating.  Robert subjected Renee to harassment and disturbed her peace, including through racist and sexually degrading comments regarding Renee’s friends of color.  Robert’s harassment also targeted the parties’ child.  Renee obtained a DVRO against Robert, but the court refused to modify a prior joint custody order, because it found an “exception” to the Family Code section 3044 rebuttable presumption against awarding custody to an adjudicated abuser like Robert.  The trial court also failed to rule on Renee’s request for child support, which she made as part of her DVRO request but, representing herself at trial, did not know to bring up on her own.  On appeal, the Court of Appeal agreed with both of our arguments: the trial court erred by failing to apply Family Code section 3044, as there are no exceptions to the statutory presumption; and the trial court erred by failing to rule on Renee’s child support request, which effectively denied it, because the court has to decide the support issue even if a party does not bring it up during the hearing, because Family Code section 6341 puts the duty on the trial court.  FVAP successfully co-counseled this case with Sidley Austin LLP.
The appellate court’s unpublished opinion can be found here.

Farewell Erin!

by

TO OUR WONDERFUL FVAP COMMUNITY

To celebrate and honor Erin Smith’s incredible 11 years as the Co-founder and Executive Director of FVAP (Family Violence Appellate Project) and her upcoming departure from FVAP, we would like to share a sampling of the beautiful messages from the Board members, Staff, and FVAP supporters. If you would like to share your own messages with Erin, you may do so by adding them to the Kudoboard here  or send an email to erin@fvaplaw.org. Erin, we wish you well in your future endeavors. Thank you for everything you have done for the organization and the survivors of family violence; you and your dedication will not be forgotten!

 

Read on in our newsletter here.

Introducing FVAP’s New Executive Director, Deborah Son

by

Family Violence Appellate Project’s Board of Directors is pleased to announce the appointment of Deborah Son as the organization’s new Executive Director. She begins the role effective February 6, 2023.

Deborah brings over fifteen years of experience in domestic violence advocacy, organizational leadership, and the nonprofit sector. She has co-authored advocacy letters and organized broad-scale grassroots efforts to raise attention for requests to appeal high-profile court decisions as they pertain the health of children, individuals, and families, leading awareness initiatives to leverage communications platforms and digital campaigns to bring light to the necessity of appealing dangerous cases. Additionally, Deborah has served as a nationally-recognized domestic violence trainer, technical assistance provider, and advocate; and has contributed to the design and implementation of dozens of psychosocial programs across the nation that support survivors and their communities.

“Much of my service and advocacy career has been dedicated to ending gender-based violence, advancing equitable care, and advocating for families to have the resources they need to thrive,” said Deborah Son. “I have committed myself to service in these issue areas to further combat the racism and institutional marginalization that often acts in direct barrier to those who need care the most. These passions are colored by my own lived experiences as a daughter of immigrants, a survivor of gender-based violence, and a witness to domestic violence in my own community.”

Most recently, Deborah served as the Executive Director of the National Association of Social Workers, California Chapter (NASW-CA). At NASW-CA, Deborah stabilized the organization, generated transformative organizational change that embraced accountability and diversity, and ensured growth.

Prior to this, Deborah served the California Alliance of Child and Family Services as Director of Strategic Initiatives, using her skills in strategic planning and program growth to secure new revenue sources and build DEI frameworks and programs. Deborah also served as the Director of Policy and Strategy at Lincoln, where she raised the capacity of direct service providers so they could participate in legislative and systems changes that strengthened support for children and families. As Program Manager at Asian Pacific Institute on Gender-Based Violence, Deborah traveled nationally and consulted on domestic violence homicide. It was her work at STAND! For Families Free of Violence (STAND!) and numerous other domestic violence and rape crisis organizations in the Bay Area, however, that kindled and cultivated her love for social and gender justice work.

“We are very excited to have Deborah join FVAP,” said Maricela Rios-Faust, Board President. “Her strong leadership abilities, deep understanding of gender-based violence, and passion for social justice are essential in leading FVAP during this next chapter.”

“I am thrilled that Deborah is joining FVAP,” said outgoing Executive Director and co-founder Erin Smith. “I have the utmost confidence in Deborah’s leadership and her passion for FVAP’s mission and the survivors we serve, and I believe she is the right person to lead FVAP into its next phase.” Erin will stay on with FVAP through February 28, providing transition support to Deborah. “On behalf of all the abuse survivors who have been helped by FVAP in the 11 years since its founding, the Board is immensely grateful to Erin for co-founding the organization, for stewarding it to become the recognized leader on legal issues that it is today, and for her years of service and hard work on behalf of survivors,” said Rios-Faust. “The Board appreciates Erin’s willingness to provide a smooth transition for Deborah and the organization.”

For more information about FVAP, visit www.fvaplaw.org.