Rodriguez v. Menjivar CA2/7
243 Cal. App. 4th 816
Cal. Ct. App.2015Background
- Rodriguez and Menjivar dated June 2013–Feb 2014; Rodriguez alleges repeated physical violence (hair-pulling, slapping, punching, kicking, threats, erratic driving) during pregnancy and controlling conduct (monitoring calls/classes, isolation).
- Rodriguez sought counseling, obtained a temporary DVPA restraining order in July 2014, and sought a permanent order after giving birth; hearings occurred Sept–Oct 2014.
- At hearing, court found substantial past physical violence through February 2014 but excluded evidence of mental/emotional abuse and controlling behavior as irrelevant.
- The trial court denied a permanent protective order, reasoning the physical abuse was remote and that respondent had moved away; it dissolved the temporary order.
- Rodriguez appealed; the Court of Appeal reversed, concluding the trial court misapplied the law by excluding mental abuse evidence and by requiring a showing of likely future abuse.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether nonphysical (mental/emotional/controlling) conduct can constitute "abuse" under the DVPA | Rodriguez: controlling, isolating, threatening conduct disturbed her peace and qualifies as abuse under the statute | Menjivar: (trial court treated) such conduct is not within DVPA scope; not grounds for order | Court: Mental/emotional abuse and controlling behavior are relevant and can constitute abuse under the DVPA; trial court erred in excluding it |
| Whether past physical abuse alone (without proof of likelihood of future abuse) can support issuance/renewal of a DVPA restraining order | Rodriguez: Significant past physical abuse is sufficient to grant a protective order — statute permits orders based on past abuse | Menjivar: (trial court treated) remoteness/no recent incidents and relocation weigh against issuing order | Court: No showing of probability of future abuse is required; past abuse alone can support issuance; trial court erred in refusing order on remoteness grounds |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Marriage of Nadkarni, 173 Cal.App.4th 1483 (Cal. Ct. App.) (nonphysical conduct that disturbs petitioner’s peace can constitute abuse under the DVPA)
- Burquet v. Brumbaugh, 223 Cal.App.4th 1140 (Cal. Ct. App.) (post-relationship electronic and in-person contact can disturb peace and support a DVPA order)
- In re Marriage of Evilsizor & Sweeney, 237 Cal.App.4th 1416 (Cal. Ct. App.) (downloading/disseminating texts can support permanent DVPA relief absent physical abuse)
- Nakamura v. Parker, 156 Cal.App.4th 327 (Cal. Ct. App.) (DVPA protective order may rest on affidavits showing past abuse without proof of future threat)
- Nevarez v. Tonna, 227 Cal.App.4th 774 (Cal. Ct. App.) (statute does not require demonstration of likelihood of future abuse to issue order)
- Eneaji v. Ubboe, 229 Cal.App.4th 1457 (Cal. Ct. App.) (appellate review addresses whether trial court applied correct legal standards in DVPA discretionary decisions)