K.L. v. R.H. CA4/3, 70 Cal.App.5th 965

Background:

K.L. and R.H. dated 2017–2018 and share a child, Z.L.; R.H. has an older child, H.H.
The record contains multiple, serious allegations of physical, sexual, and emotional violence by K.L. against R.H. (gun pointed, choking, sexual assault while incapacitated, head injuries to R.H. and children, repeated strangulation and other assaults).
Both parties separately sought Domestic Violence Prevention Act (DVPA) restraining orders in late 2019; after a contested hearing the trial court found both were primary aggressors and issued mutual restraining orders and joint legal and physical custody of Z.L.
On appeal R.H. argued the court erred in issuing mutual orders without applying the statutory factors (Pen. Code §836(c)(3) considered under Fam. Code §6305), and that the court improperly relied on her unrelated prior convictions.
The Court of Appeal: affirmed the restraining order against K.L.; reversed the restraining order against R.H.; reversed the custody orders; directed destruction of non‑authorized criminal history and remanded custody issues to consider Fam. Code §3044 (rebuttable presumption) after dependency resolution.

Issues:

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (R.H.)	Defendant's Argument (K.L.)	Held
Whether mutual DVPA restraining orders were properly issued under Fam. Code §6305	Trial court failed to weigh both parties’ conduct together and did not apply the Penal Code §836(c)(3) factors; R.H. was primary victim	R.H. threatened and disturbed K.L.’s peace; mutual orders appropriate	Trial court erred: mutual order invalid because it did not apply mandatory factors or meaningfully compare aggressions; order against R.H. reversed, order against K.L. affirmed
Whether the court could consider R.H.’s prior convictions when issuing DVPA orders	Her prior misdemeanors are not the listed violent/serious offenses under Fam. Code §6306(b) and should not be considered	Prior convictions showed violent propensity and supported issuing an order	Court erred to consider those convictions; directed destruction of record information not authorized by Fam. Code §6306(b)(1)
Whether substantial evidence supported DVPA order against each party	Insufficient evidence R.H. placed K.L. in reasonable apprehension or was a dominant aggressor; many of her communications were nonviolent	Evidence (threats, Talking Parents messages, refusals at exchanges) supported order	Substantial evidence supports order protecting R.H. and H.H. from K.L.; not enough to support the order against R.H.
Validity of custody/visitation orders given domestic violence findings and Fam. Code §3044 presumption	Joint custody was improper because the trial court did not address §3044 factors on the record and misapplied mutual aggressor findings	Joint custody appropriate; practical parenting schedule needed	Custody orders reversed; while dependency continues juvenile court controls custody; after dependency resolution any custody requests must consider and apply §3044 and its rebuttable‑presumption factors

Key Cases Cited

Melissa G. v. Raymond M., 27 Cal. App. 5th 360 (2018) (courts must consider history of domestic violence and compare parties’ conduct when evaluating mutual orders)
N.T. v. H.T., 34 Cal. App. 5th 595 (2019) (DVPA and mutual restraining orders review standards and scope of "disturbing the peace")
In re Marriage of Everard, 47 Cal. App. 5th 109 (2020) ("detailed findings" requirement for dispositive family orders explained)
Conness v. Satram, 122 Cal. App. 4th 197 (2004) (trial courts must rigorously evaluate abuse evidence where one party’s acts are substantially more violent)
In re Febbo, 52 Cal. App. 5th 1088 (2020) (definition and analysis of what constitutes a "violent" crime)
Curcio v. Pels, 47 Cal. App. 5th 1 (2020) (single private online post may be insufficient to "disturb the peace")
Perez v. Torres‑Hernandez, 1 Cal. App. 5th 389 (2016) (examples of conduct that can destroy a protected party’s mental or emotional calm)