Announcements

In this case, our client, Mother, got a domestic violence restraining order against Father after he physically abused her and refused to return their young son to her, requiring law enforcement to get involved.  The family court gave Mother sole legal and physical custody, but left in place a visitation schedule giving Father three days a week and Mother four.  Since this basically gave Father joint custody of the child for about 43% of the time, the family court was first supposed to see if Father had overcome the presumption against granting him custody, under Family Code section 3044, by analyzing the law’s seven factors in writing or on the record.  Since the family court did not do that, the appellate court reversed the visitation order, and sent the case back to the family court to follow the law.  In addition, the appellate court said the family court didn’t follow the law by refusing to give a “statement of decision,” which Mother had requested at trial, under Family Code section 3022.3.  This is the first published opinion under Family Code section 3022.3.

Read the opinion.

Deputy Director

Pronouns: she/her/hers

Monica Katz LaBoskey is the Deputy Director of Family Violence Appellate Project. Before joining FVAP, Monica was the Managing Attorney – East Bay of Asian Pacific Islander Legal Outreach. In addition to her management duties at APILO, she represented survivors of domestic violence in Family Court and received her California Domestic Violence Counselor certification through Asian Women’s Shelter. Prior to that, Monica spent more than ten years in private practice, litigating cases in state and federal courts.

Monica is actively involved in the community and serves on the Board of Directors of Oakland Interfaith Gospel Choir. She volunteers with her alma maters. She completed Bachelors of Arts in African and African American Studies, Italian Studies, and Politics at Brandeis University; received her Juris Doctor from Northeastern University School of Law; and, holds a Certificate in Nonprofit Executive Leadership from IUPUI Lilly Family School of Philanthropy.

September 2023

We are pleased to announce that Monica has been selected to participate in OneJustice’s Executive Fellowship program. The program delivers graduate-level nonprofit management content through an intensive multi-modal peer-based model. We are excited for Monica to build on her passion for organizational stability and infrastructure and apply her learnings to help FVAP succeed through its second decade and beyond.

FVAP successfully obtained publication of a new case! In this case, the survivor requested to renew a restraining order against her former husband but the trial court denied the request. The survivor appealed the denial and the Court of Appeal reversed the denial because the trial court made an error by only considering whether the former husband committed acts of domestic violence during a narrow window of time when the original restraining order was in effect, and not whether the survivor had a reasonable fear of future abuse. The case has been sent back to the trial court for them to properly apply the law.

Read the opinion.

Abusers often seek restraining orders to further abuse or control survivors. When the trial court is deciding mutual requests for restraining orders, they cannot enter mutual restraining orders without first deciding that both parties are primary aggressors within the relationship, and that neither of them were acting in self-defense. The reason for this rule is that mutual domestic violence is very rare, and wrongful mutual restraining orders put the real victim of abuse at risk.

In FVAP’s K.L v. R.H. case, the Court of Appeal explained that the trial court made an error by considering the parties’ allegations separately. Instead, the trial court should weigh the acts of the parties against each other to decide which person was the most significant aggressor in the relationship, and whether either of them acted in self defense. In considering the case this way, the Court of Appeal rightly ruled that the opposing party was the most significant aggressor, and only he should have been restrained.

The trial court also made an error by relying on the survivor’s previous criminal conviction to issue a mutual restraining order against her because it was irrelevant since it did not relate to domestic violence or other serious violence. Particularly for Black women, like the survivor in this case, overpolicing and racial stereotypes result in criminal convictions. The limitations on what kinds of convictions can be used in domestic violence restraining order cases ensures that this racial bias doesn’t also result in wrongful mutual restraining orders.

FVAP litigated this case in collaboration with pro-bono co-counsel, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton, UCI School of Law Domestic Violence Clinic, and Legal Aid SoCal. The Court of Appeal then granted our request for publication.