Cueto v. Dozier CA1/2
241 Cal. App. 4th 550
Cal. Ct. App.2015Background
- In April 2012 Cueto obtained a two‑year domestic violence restraining order after an incident at a Little League game where Dozier allegedly struck and pushed her and placed his hand on the team coach; police arrested Dozier for battery on a former cohabitant.
- The restraining order followed evidence of a history of abusive incidents over an 11‑year relationship, including a 2002 punching and other threats.
- Cueto sought permanent renewal under Fam. Code § 6345 before the 2014 expiration, citing continued fear, recurring nightmares, and two alleged post‑order drive‑bys of a white Lexus she believed Dozier was driving.
- Dozier denied post‑order violations, produced a witness denying his involvement with the Lexus, and noted he was acquitted of the related criminal charge.
- The trial court denied renewal, finding insufficient proof that Dozier drove by, no established violations, and that Cueto had not shown a reasonable apprehension of future abuse.
- The Court of Appeal held the trial court applied the correct legal standard but abused its discretion given the underlying facts supporting the original order and lack of changed circumstances; it reversed and remanded for renewal (five years or permanent).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standard for renewal under Fam. Code § 6345 | Cueto: renewal requires finding a reasonable apprehension of future abuse by a reasonable woman in same circumstances | Dozier: trial should consider acquittal and lack of further abuse; alleged drive‑bys unproven | Court: trial court applied correct standard (reasonable apprehension) but abused discretion in denying renewal |
| Whether proof of post‑order violations is required | Cueto: not required; renewal may be granted without further abuse | Dozier: emphasized lack of violations and acquittal to oppose renewal | Held: § 6345 does not require proof of subsequent abuse; trial court did not legally require it but overrelied on absence of violations |
| Whether trial court used correct scope of “abuse” | Cueto: court limited abuse to physical/mental, excluding other DVPA conduct | Dozier: argued initial incident insufficient given acquittal | Held: court’s phrasing was shorthand; DVPA’s broad definition was considered—no legal error on scope |
| Whether denial was an abuse of discretion | Cueto: facts underlying initial order and lack of changed circumstances support renewal | Dozier: urged deference to trial court credibility findings and acquittal | Held: abuse of discretion; facts and court’s bench admonitions to Dozier indicated Cueto’s fear was reasonable—remand to enter renewal for five years or permanently |
Key Cases Cited
- Ritchie v. Konrad, 115 Cal. App. 4th 1275 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004) (trial court should renew protective order only if protected party shows by preponderance a reasonable apprehension of future abuse)
- Lister v. Bowen, 215 Cal. App. 4th 319 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013) (summarizing Ritchie and clarifying objective reasonable‑apprehension test and relevant factors)
- Eneaji v. Ubboe, 229 Cal. App. 4th 1457 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014) (absence of further abuse is not a proper basis to deny renewal)
- Armando D. v. Superior Court, 71 Cal. App. 4th 1011 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999) (presumption that trial court applied correct legal standard absent evidence to contrary)