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

California Legal Victory! Michael M. v. Robin J. (Published) -Denial of DVRO Renewal

by

Michael M. v. Robin J. (Published) – Survivor’s Retaliatory or Angry Motives for Renewing a DVRO Does Not Mean There is Not a Genuine Fear of Future Abuse

The survivor asked the trial court to renew her domestic violence restraining order because her former boyfriend had physically attacked her 5 months after the initial DVRO was issued, violated the DVRO by texting her directly instead of using the Talking Parent platform, physically abused the parties’ minor child, and refused to pay child support. Despite this evidence, the trial court denied the survivor’s request to renew her DVRO because there had been no violations of the DVRO in the “past several years” and it believed the survivor’s fear of her former boyfriend was not credible because it found that there were other circumstances that led to the survivor filing the request. The appellate court reversed and renewed the survivor’s DVRO. The appellate court concluded that the trial court was wrong to 1) require the survivor to show evidence of a recent act of abuse or a recent violation of the DVRO, 2) determine that an “unquestionably violation” of the DVRO was not “really” a violation, and 3) “infer a retaliatory motive from the mere timing of [the survivor’s] renewal request” and reject her claim of fear of future abuse on that basis alone. Significantly, the appellate court noted “anger and fear are not mutually exclusive” so even if the survivor did have a retaliatory motive for asking the court to renew her restraining order this did not negate her reasonable fear of future abuse.

FVAP is thankful to have co-counseled this matter with Covington & Burling, LLP.

The appellate court’s published opinion can be found here.

California Legal Victory! Vinson v. Kinsey – Denial of DVRO

by

Vinson v. Kinsey – Survivor’s Ongoing Contact With the Person Who is Abusive Does Not Mean Abuse Did Not Happen

In Vinson v. Kinsey, the survivor asked the trial court for a domestic violence restraining order because her ex-partner physically abused her and threatened to kill her. In addition to her declaration, the survivor provided the court with six written declarations from witnesses to verbal abuse and/or her physical injuries. The survivor also gave the court copies of text messages where her ex-partner admitted that he had threatened to kill her and admitted to hitting her in the past. Despite this evidence, the trial court denied the survivor’s request for a restraining order, concluding that the survivor was not “concerned” about her ex-partner’s “comment that he would kill her” because she continued to have contact with him. The appellate court overturned the trial court’s decision to deny the restraining order and sent the case back for the trial court to decide whether a restraining order should be issued. The appellate court explained that threats do not need to be threats of violence to constitute abuse under California law. The appellate court further noted that “other aspects of the trial court’s ruling [were] also troubling,” namely that the trial court wrongly focused on the survivor’s continued contact with her ex-partner. In doing this, the trial court “effectively imposed on [her] a singular vision of how an abused woman should act” when “[all] women exposed to violence and abuse . . . do not respond similarly.” FVAP successfully co-counseled this matter with Latham & Watkins, LLP.

FVAP is thankful to have co-counseled with Latham & Watkins, LLP on this matter.

The appellate court’s published opinion can be found here.

CA Legal Victory! Hatley v. Southard – Reversal of DVRO Denial

by

In this case, our client, Jennifer Hatley, requested a DVRO against and spousal support from her estranged husband, James Southard.  Despite Jennifer alleging a pattern of coercive control, including financial control, emotional and verbal abuse, taking her car and phone, and even some physical abuse, the trial court denied Jennifer’s DVRO request.  The court also refused to let Jennifer testify to sexual abuse, which she alleged only in a supplemental declaration without giving details.  Finally, the court failed to rule on Jennifer’s request for spousal support, effectively denying it; Jennifer, representing herself at trial, did not know to press the issue.

The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s decision and sent it back for a new hearing on both the support request and the DVRO, concluding Jennifer’s allegations, if true, would meet the “broad” DVPA definition of abuse, especially as amended by 2020’s Senate Bill 1141, which clarified that DVPA abuse includes, among other things, coercive control.  The trial court also must consider Jennifer’s allegations of sexual abuse, as those were properly raised in her supplemental declaration.  Plus, the Court confirmed, even if a DVRO is denied, trial courts still have to rule on a support request.  Finally, the Court recognized that if Jennifer again represents herself, the trial court would have to take a more active role in making sure she can properly present her case.  FVAP co-counseled this case with Morrison Foerster, with amicus support from California Women’s Law Center and Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP, who successfully requested publication.

The court’s published opinion can be found here.

CA Legal Victory! T.W. v. M.S. Child Support Appeal

by

In 2018, our client T.W. got a domestic violence restraining order against the father of the parties’ child, M.S. Months later, T.W. was awarded child support at almost $500 per month. Since that time, M.S. continued filing frivolous and harassing litigation, even after being declared a vexatious litigant. In 2022, even though he did not get pre-filing permission as a vexatious litigant, M.S. was allowed to file a request to reduce his child support obligations and have T.W. pay him instead. The court did not grant M.S.’s request for T.W. to pay him, but it reduced his support obligation to T.W. to only $1 per month by using M.S.’s professed monthly income of $75 per month, even though the court twice found that amount “not credible.” With the help of Fenwick & West LLP, FVAP successfully appealed this decision, reversing the reduction of child support to T.W.

The court’s unpublished opinion can be found here.

CA Legal Victory! T.W. v. M.S. DVRO Renewal Appeal

by

In 2018, our client T.W. got a three-year domestic violence restraining order (DVRO) against the father of their child, M.S.  While T.W.’s DVRO was in place, T.W.’s trial attorney also got a workplace violence restraining order against M.S., and M.S. was declared a vexatious litigant for his continuous harassing and frivolous litigation against T.W.  In 2021, the court denied T.W.’s request to renew her DVRO.  We appealed, with the help of Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP, and the Court of Appeal agreed with us that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the renewal because all of the relevant factors supported renewing T.W.’s DVRO against M.S.  The Court reversed and remanded, sending the case back to the trial court with instructions to grant the renewal and just determine whether to renew T.W.’s DVRO for five or more years, or permanently, under subdivision (a) of Family Code section 6345.

The court’s unpublished opinion can be found here.

CA Legal Vicory! Renee A. v. Robert A.

by

In this case, our client (Renee) had a child with the opposing party (Robert) after dating.  Robert subjected Renee to harassment and disturbed her peace, including through racist and sexually degrading comments regarding Renee’s friends of color.  Robert’s harassment also targeted the parties’ child.  Renee obtained a DVRO against Robert, but the court refused to modify a prior joint custody order, because it found an “exception” to the Family Code section 3044 rebuttable presumption against awarding custody to an adjudicated abuser like Robert.  The trial court also failed to rule on Renee’s request for child support, which she made as part of her DVRO request but, representing herself at trial, did not know to bring up on her own.  On appeal, the Court of Appeal agreed with both of our arguments: the trial court erred by failing to apply Family Code section 3044, as there are no exceptions to the statutory presumption; and the trial court erred by failing to rule on Renee’s child support request, which effectively denied it, because the court has to decide the support issue even if a party does not bring it up during the hearing, because Family Code section 6341 puts the duty on the trial court.  FVAP successfully co-counseled this case with Sidley Austin LLP.
The appellate court’s unpublished opinion can be found here.