Summary
The California Court of Appeal held that the trial court erred in refusing to consider indirect contacts, including social media posts and communications with third parties, when evaluating a request for a domestic violence restraining order under the Domestic Violence Prevention Act. Because the parties sought mutual restraining orders, the court also required the trial court to reconsider both requests and determine whether either party was the primary aggressor or acted primarily in self-defense. The orders were reversed and the matter was remanded for a new evidentiary hearing.
Holdings
- The trial court erred by excluding or failing to consider alleged indirect contact, including social-media activity and communications with third parties, because the DVPA encompasses conduct that indirectly disturbs the other party's peace.
- The trial court must consider the totality of the circumstances, including relevant evidence of abuse during the parties' relationship and the history of domestic violence, rather than restricting the evidentiary hearing to conduct occurring after separation.
- Because the parties sought mutual restraining orders, the DVRO granted to R.M. also had to be reversed and vacated so the superior court could rehear both requests and apply the primary-aggressor and self-defense requirements of Family Code section 6305.
Questions Presented
- Whether the superior court abused its discretion by refusing to consider R.M.'s alleged indirect contacts with A.G., including social-media postings and communications with third parties, in deciding A.G.'s DVRO request.
- Whether the superior court was required to consider evidence of abuse occurring during the parties' relationship and the totality of the circumstances rather than limiting its inquiry to recent post-separation conduct.
- Whether the grant of R.M.'s DVRO could stand when the parties had sought mutual restraining orders and the court had not performed the primary-aggressor and self-defense analysis required by Family Code section 6305.
Disposition
reversed_and_remanded
Cases Cited (11)
- In re Marriage of F.M. & M.M. (2021) 65 Cal.App.5th 106, 115-116(followed)
- Curcio v. Pels (2020) 47 Cal.App.5th 1, 12(followed)
- Melissa G. v. Raymond M. (2018) 27 Cal.App.5th 360, 372-374(followed)
- Parris J. v. Christopher U. (2023) 96 Cal.App.5th 108, 121(followed)
- In re Marriage of Davila & Mejia (2018) 29 Cal.App.5th 220, 226(followed)
- Rodriguez v. Menjivar (2015) 243 Cal.App.4th 816, 823(followed)
- K.T. v. E.S. (2025) 109 Cal.App.5th 1114, 1128(followed)
- In re Marriage of Evilsizor & Sweeney (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 1416, 1423(followed)
- In re Marriage of Nadkarni (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 1483, 1498-1499(followed)
- Nakamura v. Parker (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 327, 334(followed)
Showing top 10 of 11.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.