Family Violence Appellate Project

Giving survivors a second chance at justice

Giving survivors a second chance at justice Donate




En Español
用中文（表達
In English

announcements

CA Case Victory! Zachary H. and Teri A (D081250)

by

Zachary H. and Teri A (D081250)

California’s Firearms Restriction under the Domestic Violence Prevention Act Ruled Constitutional. Access to Guns Is A Protected Right for Law Abiding Citizens, not Perpetrators of Domestic Violence

The 4th District Court of Appeal granted our request for partial publication of an opinion on the constitutionality of California’s firearms restriction under the Domestic Violence Prevention Act. The court also agreed to use pseudonyms to protect the survivor’s privacy.

First, the case involved a domestic violence restraining order against a mother, which included a prohibition on possessing firearms. The mother argued that a recent Supreme Court decision,  N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen 597 U.S. __ [142 S.Ct. 2111] (Bruen), rendered the firearms restriction unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. However, the court clarified that the firearms prohibition does not violate a restrained party’s Second Amendment right, as the Bruen decision only applies to law-abiding citizens, not individuals subject to domestic violence restraining orders.

Second, the opinion also addressed whether an employment exception to the firearms prohibition violated the equal protection clause. The court held that the two groups of individuals, those who need firearms for employment and those who desire firearms for self-protection, are not similarly situated. Even if they were, the court found that the exception is rationally related to the government’s interest in reducing domestic violence. The exception is narrow and limited to specific circumstances, balancing the government’s interest with the economic interests of restrained parties.

Opinion Publication  – This opinion is an order modifying an opinion and certifying it for partial publication. It involves a case between Zachary H. and Teri A. in the Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One in California. The opinion also discusses the application of the Second Amendment and equal protection clause in relation to firearms restrictions for individuals subject to restraining orders. 

WA Case Victory! Prussak v. Prussak (No. 57233-8-II) Published Opinion

by

Prussak v. Prussak (No. 57233-8-II) Published Opinion

Appellant Mr. Prussak appealed the renewal of a domestic violence protection order (DVPO) against him. The trial court found that Mr. Prussak failed to prove a substantial change in circumstances or that his acts of domestic violence would not resume. Mr. Prussak argued that the trial court abused its discretion by characterizing his electronic monitoring behavior as potentially stalking, and also considering evidence of his ongoing coercive control in the family law matter. 

The Court of Appeals upheld the trial court’s findings and conclusions. Importantly, the Opinion clarifies that post-separation behaviors are indeed relevant when considering whether an individual with a history of domestic violence will resume acts of abuse. These post-separation acts of coercive control, including electronic monitoring of the survivor, are relevant when a trial court decides whether to renew a protection order. The Opinion additionally confirms that even under the new protection order statutory framework, the burden of proof is on the restrained party, not the petitioner, in a DVPO renewal. Finally, the Opinion provides examples of when a restrained party’s behavior does not demonstrate a substantial change in circumstances—thus the DVPO should be renewed. 

These points collectively demonstrate the benefits of the case in providing clarity and guidance in deciding DVPO renewals and enhancing the safety of survivors of domestic violence.

A special thank you to FVAP Washington’s Summer Law Clerks, Brook Purtill and Michael Savell. FVAP would also like to thank Clark County Volunteer Lawyers Program, King County Sexual Assault Resource Center, the Northwest Justice Project, and Tacomaprobono Community Lawyers for their partnership in co-signing this motion.

Published Opinion

WA Case Victory! In re Marriage of Hannah v. McAdams (No. 39423-9-III) Published Opinion

by

In re Marriage of Hannah v. McAdams (No. 39423-9-III) Published Opinion 

In this custody case, the final parenting plan granted sole decision-making to Hannah due to McAdams’s history of domestic violence and substance abuse and included provisions for safe communication and prohibited derogatory remarks and discussion of litigation with the children.

McAdams petitioned to modify the plan, claiming a substantial change in circumstances due to his completion of domestic violence treatment and their daughter’s gender identity questions. 

The Court of Appeals concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding no adequate cause for McAdams to modify the parenting plan to request mutual decision-making. 

This case will benefit survivors in WA by establishing that decision-making authority cannot be modified when there are findings of domestic violence. It clarifies that these findings apply to both original and modified parenting plans. It also recognizes the harm caused by power dynamics in joint decision-making and addresses frivolous appeals brought in bad faith.

A special thank you to FVAP Washington’s Summer Law Clerks, Brook Purtill and Michael Savell.

FVAP would like to thank the National Center on Domestic and Sexual Violence, Project DVORA / Jewish Family Service, Tacomaprobono Community Lawyers, and the Network for Victim Recovery of D.C. Domestic Violence Legal Empowerment and Appeals Project (DV LEAP) for their partnership in co-signing this motion. 

Hannah v McAdams Opinion and Publication Order

WA Case Victory! DeSean v Sanger Amicus Brief (No. 101330-2)

by

DeSean v Sanger Amicus Brief (No. 101330-2)

The Sexual Assault Protection Order Act (SAPOA) allows victims of unwanted sexual contact to seek civil protection orders against perpetrators. When a petitioner seeks a SAPO based on non-consensual sexual penetration, they are not required to prove the respondent’s intent. The key question is whether the petitioner had the capacity to consent. If the answer is no, the respondent cannot raise an affirmative defense based on their reasonable belief otherwise. 

This amicus curiae brief supports the appellant, DeSean, in a case involving sexual assault protection orders (SAPOs) in Washington State. SAPOs are civil remedies designed to provide expedient relief for the safety and well-being of sexual assault survivors. The inclusion of an affirmative defense of reasonable belief in SAPO proceedings would undermine the purpose of these orders and deter survivors from seeking protection.

The Washington Supreme Court held that permitting a criminal affirmative defense in SAPO proceedings would create unnecessary barriers for survivors and undermine the purpose of these orders. 

A special thank you to our co-counsel Richard Lumley of Gordon Thomas Honeywell, LLP. FVAP would also like to thank the following partners who co-signed our amicus brief: King County Sexual Assault Resource Center, SU School of Law Family Law Center, National Center on Domestic and Sexual Violence, The Network for Victim Recovery of DC, and Sexual Violence Law Center.

Amicus Brief and Published Opinion 

California Legal Victory! JAN F. v. NATALIE F. (Unpublished) – DVRO

by

Our client’s restraining order request was denied because the trial court did not believe that what happened to her — multiple calls to law enforcement and child welfare with no legitimate purpose except to harass and control her — was abuse under California law. The court of appeal agreed with our client that those were acts of abuse. Even though people generally have a first amendment right to contact law enforcement, that right does not protect harassing abusive behavior.

Thanks to our co-counsel at Crowell & Moring, and our stellar law clerk Kaumron Eidgahy who helped prepare co-counsel for oral argument and worked on our publication request.

Unpublished (pending court rule as of 10/11/2023)

 

California Legal Victory! CHRISTOPHER U. v. PARRIS J. (Published Opinion) – DVRO

by

Christopher U. appealed from a restraining order that protected his spouse Parris J. One provision of the restraining order required Christopher to change the beneficiary of a large life insurance policy he held on Parris’s life to a charity of her choice for as long as the restraining order was in effect, because Parris said the fact that Christopher would have significant financial gain if she died disturbed her peace, which is one definition of abuse under California law. Christopher challenged this provision, and the court of appeal confirmed that trial courts do have the authority to order this type of relief in a restraining order. The trial court also found Christopher’s actions that caused Parris to be financially dependent were part of a pattern of coercive control, which is also abuse under California law. We are grateful to our co-counsel Goodwin Procter, and to the many domestic violence organizations that filed an amicus (friend of the court) brief in this case to help the court of appeal understand coercive controlling abuse.

FVAP Co-counsel with Goodwin Procter.

In partnership with Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Domestic Violence Legal Empowerment and Appeals Project, Stopping Domestic Violence, California Protective Parents Association, Center for Domestic Peace, Sanctuary for Families, The National Family Violence Law Center at George Washington University Law School, the Law Foundation of Silicon Valley, California Women’s Law Center, Community Overcoming Relationship Abuse, Los Angeles Center for Law and Justice, and Women Lawyers Association of Los Angeles.

Published Opinion