K.T. v. E.S., B333127

K.T., the plaintiff, sought a domestic violence restraining order (DVRO) against her ex-partner E.S., alleging a long history of severe physical, sexual, and psychological abuse over seven years, including abuse witnessed by their three minor children.
K.T. requested that the DVRO also cover her daughters D.S., I.S., and H.S., citing E.S.'s violence toward the children and their exposure to his abuse of her.
Following incidents of documented violence and child abduction by E.S., temporary and later permanent DVROs were issued to protect K.T., but the trial court declined to include the children as protected parties.
The trial court erroneously found either that the children were not properly requested as protected parties or that there was no credible evidence of direct physical or sexual abuse against them, absent imminent risk.
K.T. appealed, arguing the trial court failed to use the correct legal standard and that the evidence amply demonstrated "good cause" to include her children as protected under the DVRO.
The case turns on the interpretation and application of the "good cause" standard for including other family members as protected parties under the DVPA, reviewed for abuse of discretion and de novo on questions of law.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether children must be included as protected parties in DVRO on showing of "good cause".	K.T.: Children need protection due to exposure to and experience of E.S.'s abuse; good cause exists under totality of the circumstances.	E.S.: No response/opposition filed; trial court reasoned no direct imminent risk or credible evidence of abuse to children.	Reversed trial court; court must include children as protected parties if good cause shown, considering totality; evidence here clearly established good cause.
Whether trial court applied correct legal standard in denying protection to children.	K.T.: Court erred by using heightened standard (imminent risk/direct abuse), not the statutory "good cause" standard.	---	Court used wrong standard—erroneously limited inquiry to direct physical/sexual abuse.
Whether further fact-finding was needed before including children.	K.T.: Record's uncontested evidence suffices; remand is unnecessary and retraumatizing.	---	Reviewing court found evidence sufficient; instructed trial court to modify DVRO to include children without further proceedings.
Whether abuse witnessed by children qualifies as abuse/disturbance of peace under DVPA.	K.T.: Witnessing parent's domestic abuse is traumatic, harms children, and qualifies as a disturbance.	---	Yes, abuse in presence of children is sufficient basis to include them; DVPA interpreted liberally.

In re Marriage of D.S. & A.S., 87 Cal.App.5th 926 (exercise of DVRO discretion reviewed for abuse of discretion)
In re Marriage of F.M. & M.M., 65 Cal.App.5th 106 (incorrect legal standard is error of law, subject to reversal)
J.H. v. G.H., 63 Cal.App.5th 633 (potential jeopardy to children's safety not required for DVRO protection; totality of circumstances controls)
Rodriguez v. Menjivar, 243 Cal.App.4th 816 (abuse of discretion to apply wrong legal standard in DVRO context)
Perez v. Torres-Hernandez, 1 Cal.App.5th 389 (witnessing domestic violence is traumatic to children and may justify protection)