44 Cal.App.5th 44
Cal. Ct. App.2020Background
- L.W., a 14-year-old, was charged in October 2018 with sexual battery against two 14-year-old classmates; at arraignment on November 13, 2018 the prosecutor sought temporary restraining orders (TROs) under California Rules of Court, rule 5.630 and the juvenile court issued TROs ex parte without prior notice to L.W. or counsel.
- The prosecutor made an oral offer of proof at the arraignment describing alleged touching at a high‑school football game; a noticed hearing under Welf. & Inst. Code § 213.5 was set for December 4, 2018.
- At the December hearing Officer Leo Gil testified as to victims’ statements describing nonconsensual touching (breast and vaginal area over clothing) and an attempted unbuttoning; the juvenile court found good cause and issued a three‑year restraining order (100‑yard stay‑away, no contact).
- On February 21, 2019 L.W. pleaded no contest to one count; the juvenile court kept the three‑year restraining order in effect; L.W. appealed, challenging (1) issuance of the TROs without notice and (2) sufficiency of evidence for the three‑year order.
- The Court of Appeal held the ex parte TROs were improperly issued because the People did not satisfy Code of Civil Procedure § 527(c) notice/emergency requirements despite rule 5.630, but upheld the three‑year pre‑adjudication restraining order as supported by substantial evidence and a proper exercise of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether TROs in juvenile proceedings may be granted without notice under rule 5.630 despite CCP § 527(c) | Rule 5.630 permits temporary orders without notice; court may consider juvenile file and documents | TROs required notice under CCP § 527(c); People made no showing of irreparable injury or efforts to notify | TROs were improperly issued without satisfying CCP § 527(c); rule 5.630 cannot displace § 213.5’s requirement to follow CCP § 527(c) |
| Whether the three‑year pre‑adjudication restraining order was supported by substantial evidence | Victims’ statements and officer testimony, plus juvenile’s prior record, show good cause for protective order | Insufficient showing that intimidation/dissuasion risk existed; order unsupported by evidence | Three‑year restraining order affirmed: substantial evidence supports the court’s factual findings and exercise of discretion under § 213.5 |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Jonathan V., 19 Cal.App.5th 236 (Cal. Ct. App. 2018) (rule 5.630 cannot be read to override statutory notice requirements in § 213.5 and CCP § 527)
- In re Carlos H., 5 Cal.App.5th 861 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016) (standards for appellate review of juvenile restraining orders: substantial evidence for findings; abuse of discretion for issuance)
- Babalola v. Superior Court, 192 Cal.App.4th 948 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) (criminal restraining orders under Penal Code § 136.2 require a good‑cause finding that intimidation or dissuasion has occurred or is likely)
- In re B.S., 172 Cal.App.4th 183 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) (in dependency contexts evidence of prior sexual/physical abuse can support restraining orders under § 213.5)
- Kaiser Foundation Hospitals v. Wilson, 201 Cal.App.4th 550 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) (court may consider hearsay and other relevant evidence in injunction hearings under analogous statutes)