Melissa G. v. Raymond M.
238 Cal. Rptr. 3d 127
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2018Background
- Father and mother (parents of a minor) each filed applications for domestic violence restraining orders; both applications were heard at a single evidentiary hearing.
- The trial court issued two restraining orders (one against each party), and limited contact between them to the Talking Parents platform, without making express factual findings about primary aggressor or self-defense.
- Parties disputed multiple exchange incidents (Jan. 21, Feb. 4, Mar. 4, 2017) including alleged assaults, biting, phone-grabbing, and thousands of blocked calls; evidence included declarations, some police involvement, photos, and limited live testimony.
- Father appealed, arguing section 6305 requires detailed factual findings before issuing mutual restraining orders and that the evidence was insufficient to show he was the primary aggressor.
- The Court of Appeal held the trial court erred by failing to make the section 6305 findings; it found there was nevertheless substantial evidence that could support a finding that father was a primary aggressor and therefore reversed and remanded for factual findings and reconsideration.
Issues
| Issue | Father’s Argument | Mother’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether section 6305 requires detailed findings when a court issues mutual restraining orders after a single hearing on competing requests (even if based on separate incidents) | §6305 requires such detailed findings before issuing mutual orders; court failed to do so | Court may issue reciprocal orders based on separate incidents without the section 6305 detailed findings | Court held §6305’s finding requirement applies when competing restraining requests are considered at the same hearing, regardless of whether incidents are separate; trial court erred by not making findings |
| Whether substantial evidence exists to support finding father acted as primary aggressor and not primarily in self-defense | There was insufficient evidence to support that finding; father sought reversal of the order against him | Mother argued evidence (e.g., blocked calls, police involvement, recorded incidents) supported restraining order against father | Court found there was substantial evidence in the record that could support a finding father acted as a primary aggressor; remanded for trial court to make the required findings rather than unqualifiedly reversing only father’s order |
Key Cases Cited
- Isidora M. v. Silvino M., 239 Cal.App.4th 11 (2015) (discusses §6305’s findings requirement, legislative history, and due process concerns)
- Conness v. Satram, 122 Cal.App.4th 197 (2004) (explains procedural requirements for mutual domestic violence orders under §6305)
- Monterroso v. Moran, 135 Cal.App.4th 732 (2006) (mutual restraining order voidable where §6305 findings absent when required)
- J.J. v. M.F., 223 Cal.App.4th 968 (2014) (insufficient evidence to find mother a primary aggressor; appellate reversal limited to portion enjoining mother)
- DiMartino v. City of Orinda, 80 Cal.App.4th 329 (2000) (standard for reviewing substantial-evidence challenges and deference to trial court findings)