Today we are representing a survivor who we believe was pressured into allowing temporary guardianship for her baby. Six years later she still has not been reunited with her child. After years of delays the trial court gave permanent guardianship to the child’s grandparents and would not give an explanation for this decision.
FVAP believes the trial court used the wrong criteria and stale evidence to make its order and should have explained decision.
FVAP asked state and national organizations to write a friend-of-the-court (amicus) brief on the impact of trauma, the ability of survivors to heal, and the failure of courts to take these issues into account appropriately when making their decisions. Our co-counsel at Mayer Brown will be arguing on our client’s behalf at approximately 4pm this afternoon.
On August 5, the Court of Appeal issued its opinion in our case of Ashby v. Ashby, where we represented a survivor of domestic violence in defending against her abuser appealing the five-year renewal of her restraining order. In the opinion, the Court of Appeal agreed with us that our client’s five-year restraining order renewal should stay in place.
We’re teaming up with California Partnership to End Domestic Violence (CPEDV) to host bimonthly Legal Chats with FVAP! These are statewide calls open to all CPEDV members. This month’s call is today, August 4 at 11am. The topic is Litigation Abuse: Stories and Strategies. Interested in learning more about calls like this one and how you can attend? Reach out to us at staff@fvaplaw.org.
Don’t miss FVAP’s 
We’re in oral argument June 22 representing a survivor of domestic violence who was granted a five-year extension of her restraining order. Her abuser is appealing the extension arguing that the trial court made mistakes before arriving at their decision to extend the order. FVAP and our client believe the trial court was correct in their decision to extend the restraining order, and we will be arguing that in court on our survivor client’s behalf.
