FVAP is gratified that our client G.G. will get a new hearing to determine whether her restraining order should be renewed. The published opinion will also provide guidance to courts throughout California hearing cases like G.G.’s. The opinion has a lot of helpful guidance, including:
- Trial courts cannot narrowly focus on a lack of restraining order violations when determining whether to renew a restraining order.
- Courts instead must apply the factors outlined in Ritchie v. Conrad to determine if the survivor has a reasonable apprehension of future abuse.
- Whether the initial restraining order was based on physical or nonphysical abuse does not matter, the previous abuse may be enough on its own to justify renewing the restraining order and that is also true in cases where no further abuse, such as restraining order violations, has occurred.
- The Domestic Violence Prevention Act does not distinguish between physical and non-physical abuse.
- Stalking and controlling behaviors are serious predictors of future harm. Renewal of DVROs can help prevent ongoing abuse by stalkers who may persist even after the order expires.
- Courts should adopt a practical view of DVRO renewals. The Ritchie framework guides courts to assess the nature of the problem, external changes in the situation, and any burdens on the restrained party. The court must determine if there is a reasonable apprehension of abusive behavior resuming after the order expires.
FVAP would like to thank Cory Hernandez, Shuray Ghorishi and Jennafer Dorfman Wagner, for their work on the matter.
A special thank you to co-counsel Jeremy B. Rosen, Melissa B. Whalen, and Nicole P. Hood of Horvitz & Levy.
We are also deeply appreciative to Mary-Christine Sungaila of Complex Appellate Litigation Group, whose Amicus Curiae brief on behalf of California Women’s Law Center was extensively quoted in the opinion.
Published Amicus Brief
