Molinaro v. Molinaro, 33 Cal. App. 5th 824

Bertha Molinaro filed for dissolution and, after incidents she described as blocking exits and threats, sought a domestic violence restraining order (DVPA). She alleged Michael posted derogatory comments and her address on Facebook and feared for her and the children’s safety.
The trial court initially denied an ex parte temporary restraining order but later, after a hearing, issued a three-year domestic violence restraining order requiring Michael to stay 100 yards away from Bertha and the children, bar contact about the case with the children, require monitored visits, and order anger-management classes.
The written order included an attachment directing both parties not to post anything about the case on Facebook.
Michael challenged the order, asserting among other things that the Facebook prohibition was an unconstitutional restraint on speech and that exclusion of his children as witnesses was erroneous. He sought a new trial; the trial court denied relief.
On appeal, the court affirmed the restraining order in all respects except it found the Facebook posting ban to be an overbroad prior restraint on speech and directed that provision struck.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Molinaro)	Defendant's Argument (Bertha)	Held
Whether evidence supported issuance of DVPA restraining order	Argued court erred; no abuse shown	Court may rely on testimony of fear, prior incidents, and social-media conduct	Court found evidence sufficient and affirmed order except speech ban
Whether court erred by excluding children as witnesses	Argued exclusion was misconduct and prejudicial	Trial court justified exclusion; Michael made no offer of proof	Issue forfeited on appeal for lack of offer of proof; no relief
Whether ordering anger-management classes lacked foundation	Argued no basis for ordering classes absent abuse	Court viewed conduct and tensions as basis for anger-management (not 52-week program)	Affirmed as within court’s discretion
Whether prohibition on posting "anything about the case on Facebook" violated free speech	Argued social-media posts are constitutionally protected speech	Argued posts harmed safety and children; court sought to protect children	Court held the Facebook ban was an overbroad, invalid prior restraint and ordered it struck; remaining restraining provisions upheld

Nebraska Press Ass'n v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539 (1976) (prior restraints are the most serious infringement on First Amendment rights and presumptively invalid)
Aguilar v. Avis Rent A Car System, Inc., 21 Cal.4th 121 (1999) (California/federal analysis of permissible prior restraints and narrow tailoring)
Hobbs v. County of Westchester, 397 F.3d 133 (2d Cir. 2005) (discusses burden for prior restraints: compelling interest, necessity, effectiveness, and lack of alternatives)
Carroll v. President & Com'rs of Princess Anne, 393 U.S. 175 (1968) (prior restraints must be narrowly tailored to accomplish pinpointed objectives)
Wilson v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County, 13 Cal.3d 652 (1975) (California requires extraordinary circumstances for prior restraints)
In re Marriage of Candiotti, 34 Cal.App.4th 718 (1995) (custody-order speech restriction was overbroad where it restrained speech about another adult outside children’s presence)
In re Marriage of Hartmann, 185 Cal.App.4th 1247 (2010) (courts may order parents not to disparage the other parent in front of children)