Why this case is important:
- This is the first California appellate decision to expressly hold that a survivor does NOT need to prove their abuser intended to threaten, harm, or intimidate them in order for them to prove abuse happened, and to get a restraining order.
- This case reaffirms a point of law important for DVRO cases: For an initial DVRO, the survivor does NOT need to show a “probability of future abuse”; they only need to prove past abuse.
- Also, if you or your client are appealing the denial of a DVRO request or other DVRO relief, you can use this case to argue that the Court of Appeal should not only reverse the denial but also remand (send back to the trial court) with instructions to grant the DVRO or other relief.
Summary of the Case
In this case, R.R. sought a domestic violence restraining order (DVRO) against his ex-wife C.R., with whom he has a child. R.R. filed for divorce in 2020 and then filed a request for a DVRO in 2024 based on C.R.’s escalating pattern of abuse, including stalking him “almost daily” and sending him threatening messages. For instance, C.R. followed R.R. while was driving with their child, C.R. rang R.R.’s doorbell incessantly at all hours of the day and night, and C.R. threatened to disparage R.R. to his employer. At the hearing on R.R.’s DVRO request, the trial court found that although C.R. acted in the ways R.R. testified, her actions weren’t abuse under the law because R.R. did not present enough evidence that she intentionally tried to threaten or intimidate him.
The appellate court reversed, finding that the trial court erred when it said that R.R. needed to prove C.R.’s intent in order to prove abuse happened and a DVRO was needed. The appellate court also explained that R.R. did not need to prove any probability of future abuse, because an initial DVRO requires only past abuse. Because of the undisputed evidence of C.R.’s abuse, and the trial court’s express findings about C.R.’s actions, the appellate court reversed the trial court’s denial and remanded the case back to the trial court to issue R.R. his DVRO against C.R.
View the full Case Alert for practice tips. | View the Published Opinion.
