Priscila N. v. Leonardo G.
B279584
| Cal. Ct. App. | Dec 1, 2017Background
- Priscila obtained a juvenile-court domestic violence restraining order (DVRO) under Welfare & Institutions Code §213.5 after repeated abuse by her then-husband Leonardo in the presence of their children. The juvenile court issued a three-year DVRO following violations.
- The juvenile court terminated dependency jurisdiction and issued an exit order transferring matters to family court; the three-year DVRO was attached to that exit order.
- Leonardo repeatedly violated the restraining order and family-court dissolution orders; Priscila sought renewal of the juvenile DVRO in family court using Judicial Council form DV-700, requesting renewal under Family Code §6345.
- Family court clerks provided form DV-100 (initial order) instead; at a hearing the family court initially granted a permanent renewal but later vacated that renewal, concluding it lacked statutory authority to renew a juvenile-court DVRO.
- The family court later granted Priscila a three-year initial DVRO under the DVPA; Priscila appealed the denial of renewal and the court of appeal reversed, directing the family court to renew the juvenile DVRO for five years or permanently.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether family court may renew a DVRO originally issued by juvenile court | Family Code §6345 and Welfare & Institutions Code should be read together to permit family court renewal of juvenile-issued DVROs; legislative intent favors coordinated protection | Juvenile-code DVROs are issued under Welfare & Institutions Code and lack a statutory renewal mechanism in Family Code §6345; family court thus lacks authority to renew | Court held family court has authority under Fam. Code §6345(a) to renew juvenile-court DVROs and reversed the denial of renewal |
| Whether denying renewal prejudiced appellant | Renewal sought was for permanent protection; vacatur forced reapplication and a lesser three-year order, causing retraumatization and procedural harm | (Implicit) No prejudice because family court later issued a three-year initial order | Court found prejudicial error: appellant would have obtained permanent renewal and thus was prejudiced by vacatur |
Key Cases Cited
- Chalmers v. Hirschkop, 213 Cal.App.4th 289 (statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)
- In re R.C., 196 Cal.App.4th 741 (statutory interpretation principles in family/juvenile context)
- Mt. Hawley Ins. Co. v. Lopez, 215 Cal.App.4th 1385 (look to plain language, legislative history, and practical construction)
- Ritchie v. Konrad, 115 Cal.App.4th 1275 (renewal of DVROs does not require proof of further abuse)
- Lister v. Bowen, 215 Cal.App.4th 319 (violation of restraining order supports renewal)
- Avalos v. Perez, 196 Cal.App.4th 773 (supporting authority on renewal standards)
- County of Los Angeles v. Williamsburg National Ins. Co., 235 Cal.App.4th 944 (standard for demonstrating prejudice on appeal)