California Family Law Judge Reversed for Not Following Domestic Violence Law

Does it matter in a domestic violence case under California’s Family Code whether a party who engaged in bad behavior intended to cause abuse? The answer is no, according to a three-judge panel of the California Court of Appeal. Ruling unanimously, the justices reversed a trial judge who denied an ex-husband’s request for a restraining order against his former wife and ordered the lower court to grant the man’s request. This was the case even though a judge’s denial of a domestic violence restraining order is reviewed under the deferential “abuse of discretion” standard.

This case, entitled Marriage of Rinker (2025) 2025 DJDAR 11793, involved a couple named Robert and Cindi who were married in 2014 and had a son, “W.”, born the following year.

In 2019, Robert filed a request for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) based on Cindi’s recent psychiatric hospitalization following an attempt to overdose on Prozac. The TRO was denied.

But in the same year, the Department of Child Support Services (DCFS) filed a petition in juvenile court alleging that W. was “at risk of harm due to Cindi’s mental and emotional problems, including a diagnosis of psychosis, paranoid and erratic behavior, and suicidal ideation.”  Cindi blamed it on the Prozac.

Cindi was hospitalized again after being detained by the police. She began to see a psychiatrist and started taking medication for her mental condition.

In early 2020, the juvenile court ordered joint legal custody and sole physical custody to Robert, with supervised visitation for Cindi. The case then returned to family court where a divorce decree was entered. Cindi’s conditions of visitation were to improve based on the approval of her psychiatrist. So, in April 2022, the visitation was changed from supervised visitation to unsupervised visitation.

But in May, 2024, Robert filed another request for a restraining order. He stated that “Cindi’s conduct included sitting in her car outside of the home at all hours of the night and ringing his doorbell incessantly and refusing to leave, after he threatened to call the police.”  He accused her of sending threatening communications after he refused to communicate with her. Robert claimed that in late 2023, Cindi had relapsed and “began stalking and following me incessantly as well as harassing me via text and calls”.

Robert claimed that in December 2023, Cindi followed him and W. home and entered his house without permission, refusing to leave for two hours. According to Robert, Cindi made accusations toward Robert’s parents and grabbed Robert’s father by the shirt. W yelled for Cindi to stop. Robert and W. stayed at a hotel that night.

Then, on March 29, 2024, Cindi followed Robert home and rang his doorbell repeatedly. She refused to leave despite his requests that she do so.

On April 29, 2024, Cindi parked in Robert’s driveway and refused to leave until W. came out and spoke to her. When Robert blocked her text messages, she began texting his parents.

The next month, there were several outings Robert and W. went to but to which Cindi had not been invited. Yet she showed up anyway. There was also a time where she called Robert multiple times from several phone numbers then appeared at a dinner she had agreed not to attend.

Fast forward to May 11, 2024. Cindi got into Robert’s car with Robert and their son, without permission and refused to leave. She then followed them in her car, pulling up to Robert’s car and threatening to send someone to inspect the son and to make sure there were no scratches on him.

On May 17, 2024, Cindi apparently followed Robert and W. in her car “despite his texts requesting that she stop”. According to the justices, she also threated to message his boss. That evening, Cindi rang his doorbell incessantly, ignoring his requests that she stop and leave. She then sat in her car outside his house for hours and continued to call and text him.”

Finally, the following morning. Robert was driving the child to a soccer tournament. According to the justices’ opinion, “Cindi followed him from his neighborhood onto the freeway.”  She then accelerated and pulled alongside his vehicle, “signaling him to call her.”  Robert existed the freeway so as to try to avoid Cindi, “but when he got back on, he saw Cindi had pulled onto the freeway shoulder. She ‘continued to chase after me’ and texted that she would pay his parents a visit.”

A hearing on the restraining order request took place on June 13, 2024. Both parties testified.

In ruling on the restraining order request, the judge stated that Robert had “certainly presented evidence related to the stalking. But I guess the question really is, is this kind of circumstance arising from a medical condition that can be addressed (in a way) other than this court issuing a restraining order.”

The judge went on to say that Cindi had a condition called “adjustment disorder.”  The judge said the condition was being treated by therapy and was under control. The court said, Robert’s allegations “primarily relate to conduct where the respondent is seeking to have additional time with their child.”  The court also said that the evidence Cindi was following Robert was “inconclusive.”  But the judge concluded that “if anything like this happens in the future,” Robert would be “welcome to come back to this court and ask for a restraining order because what he has identified is clearly obsessive behavior.”  Nevertheless, the judge did grant Robert’s request that Cindi’s visits be professionally supervised.

Robert’s argument on appeal was that the trial court narrowly focused on whether “Cindi’s ‘obsessive’ conduct was intentionally threatening or intimidating, or whether it was caused by her mental disorder.”  The appeals court stated, “[t]he record of the hearing supports (Robert’s) contention that the court did not correctly apply the standard of abuse under the Domestic Violence Protection Act.” The justices stated, “[t]he law does not permit courts to make a distinction between physical and non-physical abuse when issuing domestic violence restraining orders.”  And the appeals court went on to say that the judge “found Robert credible, but it nevertheless ignored his evidence of Cindi’s escalating behavior, including relentless calling, texting, and ringing his doorbell, waiting in his neighborhood for hours, following and/or chasing him in her car while driving erratically, entering his home and car without permission and refusing to leave, and threatening to harass his work and parents if he did not comply with her demands”.  Moreover, Cindi did not dispute much of this evidence. Still, the judge found that there was insufficient evidence of abuse under the Domestic Violence Protection Act (DVPA).

The Court of Appeal concluded that “Robert has not required under the DVPA to show that Cindi intended to threaten to intimidate him.”  He was not required to establish a probability of future abuse. All that was required was a preponderance of evidence or “reasonable proof” showing past abuse.

The matter was sent back to the trial court with directions to grant Robert’s application and enter the DVRO requested. It is not clear how long the restraining order must be, but a party’s request for a DVRO in California may be granted for up to five years.

Interestingly, the same branch of the Court of Appeal had previously reversed the same trial judge just a year previously for denying a domestic violence petition on the ground that the petitioner had presented “evidence of stalking, but not ‘intentional causing of fear’” by the respondent. (See G.G. v. G.S. (2024) 102 Cal.App.5^th 413.)