Why this case is important:
- This is one of the few cases to clearly hold that trial courts may not disregard or minimize abuse allegations simply because they arise in the context of custody and visitation disputes.
- This is the first California appellate decision to expressly hold that incidents of abuse occurring outside the United States must still be considered when deciding whether to grant or deny a Domestic Violence Restraining Order.
- This case reaffirms several points of law important for DVRO cases, such as:
- Using someone’s immigration status to threaten, pressure, or control them is a form of coercive control.
- Trial courts must consider the totality of the circumstances when deciding whether to grant or deny a DVRO.
Summary of the Case
In this case, X.K., a Chinese emigrant, sought a Domestic Violence Restraining Order (DVRO) against her ex-husband, M.C., a U.S. citizen. She described a history of abuse–some of which occurred when the couple lived in China–including physical and sexual abuse while she was pregnant and after childbirth, strangulation, and threats. She also alleged M.C. continued his pattern of coercive control once she returned to California with their daughter in 2022. He, for example, threatened to divorce her if she did not follow his family’s rules, including being home every night and only working when their child was at school. He further threatened to kick her out of the residence and refused to let her use his car, limiting her to jobs within walking distance. M.C. also constantly changed his mind on whether he would assist X.K. with her green card application.
The trial court denied X.K.’s request, noting its belief that most of the issues involved disputes about custody and visitation and not abuse. The court also questioned whether it could consider abuse that happened multiple years ago in China.
The appellate court reversed, finding that the trial court erred when it determined X.K.’s allegations were “merely a dispute over custody and visitations that did not ‘fall under the definition of abuse’” and dismissed her DVRO request. The appellate court explained that, if X.K.’s allegations of abuse were found to be credible, they could have established past acts of physical and sexual abuse and conduct that disturbed her peace. The appellate court further noted that the trial court should have considered all the evidence, including past acts of abuse occurring in China, to determine whether M.C.’s recent conduct in California disturbed X.K.’s peace. As a result, the Court of Appeal remanded the case for a new hearing.
View the full Case Alert for practice tips. | View the Published Opinion.
