Case Alert: Bassi v. Bassi (

 This is one of the first cases to explain survivors don’t have to ask the abuser to stop the abuse before they can get a domestic violence restraining order (DVRO). If the abuser sends harassing, disturbing, or unwanted messages, the survivor doesn’t need to first ask them to stop before they can get a DVRO. (Fam. Code, § 6320, subd. (a).) 

This is one of just a few cases to help explain some behavior that seems like a “mere annoyance” is actually abuse. This case explains behavior needs to be looked at as part of the history of the parties’ relationship. (Fam. Code, § 6301, subd. (c).) In this case, the court explained the abuser’s emails may seem to be “mere annoyances” when read for the first time. But when reading those emails as part of the parties’ relationship over time, it’s clear those emails are actually abuse. 

This case shows that unwanted contacts, harassment, OR disturbing the peace can be enough to get a DVRO, even if ONLY ONE of these three types of abuse has happened. (Fam. Code, § 6320, subd. (a).) Cases often say behavior is unwanted contact, harassment, and disturbing the peace. This makes it seem like behavior has to be all three types of abuse to count for a DVRO. But to get a DVRO, a survivor only has to prove one type of abuse happened. (Fam. Code, § 6300, subd. (a).) 

This case gives examples of how an abuser’s unwanted contacts, harassment, or disturbing the peace, can still be abuse even without threats or violence. (Fam. Code, § 6320, subd. (a).) 

This case helps explain why a previous case, Curcio v. Pels (2020) 47 Cal.App.5th 1, is limited in how it can be used to show abuse didn’t happen. This is important to note because we have seen many courts use Curcio v. Pels to say abuse didn’t happen and deny a DVRO, even when Curcio v. Pels really shouldn’t be used in that way. Basically, in Curcio v. Pels, the appeal court said the DVRO shouldn’t have been granted because one private Facebook post wasn’t enough to be abuse on the specific facts of that case. Importantly, Bassi v. Bassi gives a helpful example of how Curcio v. Pels should NOT be used for denying a DVRO or finding abuse didn’t happen, without very careful consideration first. (Fam. Code, § 6320, subd. (a).)