In re Marriage of Hoch (2026) 119 Cal.App.5th 80

This case explains the “primary aggressor” analysis in the context of mutual restraining orders where there is no physical abuse and addresses religious abuse. The trial court found both Michael and Marcie were the primary aggressors, issuing mutual restraining orders. Michael and Marcie practiced the same religion, but disagreed on how it should be practiced. The court found Michael was a primary aggressor because he tracked and monitored Marcie’s accounts and devices, monitored Marcie’s whereabouts through a phone app and used his understanding of their religion to control Marcie. The court found Michael engaged in coercive control. Marcie was also found to be a primary aggressor because she entered their former family residence against Michael’s wishes while he was not home and took items, found and looked into Michael’s new car, and attended a barbeque near another home the family owned while she was restrained by a temporary restraining order, although she fled when he appeared.

The appellate court reversed the trial court’s finding that Marcie was a primary aggressor holding trial courts must: (1) consider the parties’ respective acts of domestic violence in concert and weigh them against the other, (2) consider the history of domestic violence between the parties, and (3) consider the intent of the law to protect victims from continuing abuse. Applying this standard and comparing the allegations of abuse between the parties, the appellate court found the evidence did not support a finding that Marcie was a primary aggressor. Marcie’s acts were “discrete” and “isolated” while Michael’s involved serious repeated conduct over a period of several months. Therefore, the trial court errored when it issued mutual restraining orders.

Additionally, Michael appealed arguing the DVRO was issued in error because he could not be restrained for exercising his religion. The appellate court ruled that even though Michael believed he was validly exercising his religious beliefs, he was not free to impose his understanding of their religious beliefs onto Marcie.