Garcia v. Escobar, 17 Cal. App. 5th 267

Garcia and Escobar dated, had one child; juvenile dependency proceedings led to juvenile court issuing a restraining order protecting Garcia and the child after a noticed hearing (order dated Sept. 16, 2013).
The juvenile-court restraining order expired Sept. 16, 2016; juvenile court terminated jurisdiction May 20, 2014 but the protective order remained in effect until modified.
Nine days before expiration, Garcia filed in family court a request for a domestic violence restraining order and served Escobar; the family court treated the filing as a new request and concluded it lacked jurisdiction to renew a juvenile-court order.
At hearing, parties briefly discussed stipulating to renewal but did not finalize a stipulation; the family court issued a one-year restraining order instead of applying Family Code section 6345.
On appeal, Garcia argued Family Code §6345 (renewal for five years or permanently) applies to juvenile-court orders once juvenile jurisdiction ends and that family court thus had power to renew.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Family Code §6345 applies to restraining orders issued by juvenile court so family court may renew after juvenile jurisdiction ends	§6345 applies because the juvenile order was an "order after hearing" under the same Family Code definitions and procedures; family court can renew after juvenile jurisdiction terminates	Family court lacked jurisdiction to renew because the order originated in juvenile court	Family court has jurisdiction to apply §6345 to renew juvenile-court restraining orders after juvenile jurisdiction terminates; remand to apply §6345
Whether appellate court should enter a five-year or permanent renewal or remand for trial-court determination	Garcia requested renewal and sought five-year or permanent order on appeal	Escobar contested renewal; no binding stipulation; factual record insufficient for appellate entry of renewal	Remand required for trial court to determine entitlement to five-year or permanent order; appellate court affirmed existing one-year order and remanded

In re Chantal S., 13 Cal.4th 196 (explaining juvenile court is a superior court exercising limited juvenile jurisdiction and that Family Code protections apply in juvenile proceedings)
In re B.S., Jr., 172 Cal.App.4th 183 (characterizing a Welf. & Inst. Code §213.5 order as analogous to a Family Code §6340 order after hearing)
Avalos v. Perez, 196 Cal.App.4th 773 (discussing §6345’s five-year renewal purpose to spare victims frequent return to court)