Perez v. Torres-Hernandez CA1/4
1 Cal. App. 5th 389
Cal. Ct. App.2016Background
- Perez obtained a three-year domestic violence restraining order (DVRO) against Torres-Hernandez in 2010 after long-term physical and emotional abuse; the order gave Perez sole physical custody and limited visitation to Torres-Hernandez.
- Following the order, Perez alleged Torres-Hernandez physically abused their children during visitation (bruises, swollen lip) and was charged (later dismissed) with child abuse; the restraining order was amended to restrict his contact.
- Perez sought permanent renewal of the DVRO in 2013, citing continued phone calls, anonymous threatening texts, and fear for her and the children’s safety.
- At the contested renewal hearing the court excluded some evidence, found no post-order physical abuse of Perez, treated nonphysical contacts as merely "annoying," and declined to renew the DVRO or consider modifying it to protect the children.
- The appellate court reversed, holding the trial court applied incorrect legal standards on renewal, definition of abuse, and the relevance of child abuse to Perez’s fear.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether renewal requires proof of abuse after the original order | Perez: Renewal may be based on past abuse; statute allows renewal without further abuse | Torres-Hernandez: Court should require evidence of post-order abuse | Reversed: Renewal does not require abuse after the original order; court must consider reasonable apprehension of future abuse |
| Whether nonphysical acts (calls/texts/violations) qualify as "abuse" | Perez: Harassing/annoying contacts and knowing violations constitute abuse under the DVPA | Torres-Hernandez: Such contacts are mere annoyance and not "violence" | Reversed: Statutory definition of abuse includes harassing phone calls and violations that disturb peace; these can support renewal |
| Whether child abuse is relevant to the protected party’s reasonable fear | Perez: Abuse of children placed her in reasonable apprehension of harm to herself/children and is relevant to renewal/modification | Torres-Hernandez: Abuse of children unrelated to Perez’s own abuse and thus irrelevant | Reversed: Child abuse is relevant; placing another in reasonable apprehension supports DVRO renewal and potential modification to protect children |
| Whether the trial court abused discretion by its legal rulings | Perez: Court misapplied statutory standards and excluded relevant evidence | Torres-Hernandez: Court’s factual findings supported denial | Reversed (de novo review of legal standard): Court misapplied law; remand for new hearing on renewal and modification |
Key Cases Cited
- Eneaji v. Ubboe, 229 Cal.App.4th 1457 (trial court must apply correct legal standard when renewing DVRO)
- Ritchie v. Konrad, 115 Cal.App.4th 1275 (renewal may be based on past abuse; court should find reasonable apprehension of future abuse)
- Lister v. Bowen, 215 Cal.App.4th 319 (knowing violation of restraining order supports renewal)
- Gou v. Xiao, 228 Cal.App.4th 812 (child abuse can place protected party in reasonable apprehension and support DVRO)
- Burquet v. Brumbaugh, 223 Cal.App.4th 1140 (repeated uninvited contacts can constitute abuse that "disturbs the peace")
- In re Marriage of Evilsizor & Sweeney, 237 Cal.App.4th 1416 (nonphysical invasions of privacy/disturbance can justify relief)
- Nakamura v. Parker, 156 Cal.App.4th 327 (protective orders may be issued on the basis of past abuse)
- Rodriguez v. Menjivar, 243 Cal.App.4th 816 (emotional abuse destroying mental or emotional calm is a basis for relief)