N.M. v. W.K.

In this case, the Court decided two legal issues related to continuances, which are decisions about rescheduling a hearing on a DVRO request.  First, the Court of Appeal found that a DVRO respondent’s right to a continuance under Family Code section 245, subdivision (a), does not apply when the respondent has already responded to the request.  Second, the Court noted that, under the facts of the case, denying the restrained party’s request for a continuance was okay because he still got a fair hearing where he was able to fully present his case.