Key Takeaways for Family Law Clients
A recent California appellate decision has provided significant clarification on how courts should evaluate requests for domestic violence temporary restraining orders (DVTROs). The case, In re the Marriage of A.M. and R.Y., addresses critical questions about what constitutes sufficient evidence of abuse and the discretion trial courts have when evaluating DVTRO applications.
Background of the Case
The case arose from a post-divorce dispute between former spouses who had previously entered into a marital settlement agreement (MSA). The agreement granted one party (A.M.) sole legal and primary physical custody of their minor daughter, with the other party (R.Y.) receiving supervised weekend visitation. The financial terms included a $15 million equalization payment to A.M., while R.Y. retained ownership of certain businesses where A.M. would remain employed for health insurance access.
Three months after the judgment, A.M. filed for a DVTRO against R.Y. on behalf of herself and their daughter. Her petition included a detailed declaration and numerous text messages describing alleged psychological, verbal, and emotional abuse, as well as coercive control.
The Trial Court’s Decision
The trial court initially denied the temporary restraining order, stating that the evidence failed to show reasonable proof of past abuse. Instead, the trial court found that the petition appeared to center around disputes related to their dissolution and child custody arrangements.
Parties Arguments On Appeal
R.Y. argued that the order denying the DVTRO is not appealable, and even if it is, the appeal is moot because the DVTRO would have expired after 25 days.
A.M. argued that under the holding of (Nakamura v. Parker) (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 327, the trial court was divested of discretion to deny the DVTRO because it was required to assume the truth of her evidence, and she made a facially adequate showing of abuse.
The Appeals Court Ruling
The court held that an order denying a permanent DVRO is appealable as an order refusing to grant an injunction. Further, the noticed hearing on the permanent DVRO had not been conducted and the temporary DVRO could be extended if the hearing was not conducted within the time frame thus the appeal was not moot. The appeals court disagreed with the trial court’s assessment that A.M.’s evidence was legally insufficient to establish “abuse” as defined in the Domestic Violence Prevention Act (DVPA). The appellate court found that A.M. had presented sufficient evidence of behavior that would constitute “disturbing the peace” under the DVPA, including:
- Pressuring A.M. into unwanted sexual activity
- Belittling and berating her
- Yelling in their daughter’s presence
- Making unwanted physical contact
- Showing up unannounced at A.M.’s residence
- Refusing to follow the MSA provisions
- Sending harassing text messages
Important Legal Clarification
The appeals court made an important distinction regarding trial court discretion in DVTRO cases. While disagreeing with the trial court’s finding that insufficient evidence of abuse existed, the appeals court clarified that trial courts do retain discretion to deny a DVTRO even when a petitioner has made a facially sufficient showing of abuse.
The court explained that a trial court can deny a DVTRO if it “reasonably concludes based on the totality of circumstances that a DVTRO is not necessary to protect the petitioner or others from further acts of domestic violence pending the noticed hearing.”
However, the appeals court emphasized that if a trial court denies a DVTRO despite sufficient evidence of abuse, it must:
- Affirmatively state its reasons in the order
- Show that it considered the fundamental purpose of the DVPA to prevent recurring domestic violence
- Consider factors such as the seriousness and recency of past abuse, whether it was an isolated incident or pattern, likelihood of recurrence, and the immediacy of any threat
Important Clarification on Family Law Disputes
Significantly, the appeals court ruled that a trial court may not deny ex parte relief at the DVTRO stage solely because allegations of abuse arose in the context of a family law dispute. The appellate court reversed the order denying the DVTRO and remanded the case for further consideration, emphasizing that the trial court must consider the totality of circumstances and the fundamental purpose of the Domestic Violence Prevention Act (DVPA) to prevent recurring acts of domestic violence.
What This Means for Clients
This decision has important implications for anyone seeking or defending against domestic violence restraining orders in California:
- For those seeking protection: The court clarified what constitutes sufficient evidence of abuse, particularly emphasizing that non-physical abuse, like harassment, controlling behavior, and disturbing someone’s peace, can qualify under the DVPA.
- For those facing allegations: The court affirmed that trial courts retain discretion to deny DVTROs even with sufficient allegations if immediate protection isn’t necessary before a full hearing.
How Our Firm Can Help
At the Law Office of Darshann Wienick, our experienced family law attorneys understand the nuances of family law and domestic violence . Our team can help you navigate these complex situations. Whether you need protection from abuse or are defending against allegations in a family law context, we can provide knowledgeable guidance tailored to your specific situation.
For more information please to schedule a consultation.
