76 Cal.App.5th 1139
Cal. Ct. App.2022Background
- Married parents with three sons (born 2005–2013) separated; M.S. filed a petition for a domestic violence restraining order (DVRO) protecting herself and the children and requested custody/visitation orders.
- M.S. alleged A.S. stalked and harassed her, threatened a man she was seeing, and enlisted the children to spy on and gather information about her.
- Testimony described A.S. slapping, pushing, and choking the children during "rough" play, yelling at them, and the eldest son corroborated being enlisted to follow and locate M.S. and the man she was seeing.
- The trial court issued a three-year DVRO naming M.S. and the children as protected parties, awarded M.S. temporary physical and legal custody, and limited A.S. to supervised visitation.
- A.S. appealed only the inclusion of the children, arguing the evidence showed mere rough play or discipline and was insufficient under governing standards.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by including the children as protected parties in the DVRO | M.S.: good cause existed because A.S. enlisted the children to stalk/harass her and committed physical assaults on them | A.S.: incidents were rough play or discipline; evidence insufficient to include children; analogous cases support exclusion | Court affirmed: substantial evidence supported inclusion based on enlistment of children in stalking/harassment and evidence of physical violence; no abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Burquet v. Brumbaugh, 223 Cal.App.4th 1140 (discusses abuse of discretion review for DVRO rulings)
- J.H. v. G.H., 63 Cal.App.5th 633 (addresses when children may be included as protected parties and the totality-of-circumstances inquiry)
- In re Marriage of Fregoso & Hernandez, 5 Cal.App.5th 698 (trial court has broad discretion under the DVPA)
- Sabbah v. Sabbah, 151 Cal.App.4th 818 (applies the substantial-evidence standard to domestic violence orders)
- In re Alexandria P., 1 Cal.App.5th 331 (describes scope of appellate review of factual findings)
- Gonzales v. Munoz, 156 Cal.App.4th 413 (courts should not substitute their judgment for the trial court's factual inferences)
- Huang v. Board of Directors, 220 Cal.App.3d 1286 (appellate courts cannot reweigh evidence or resolve conflicts)