The Law Office of Edward Misleh
The Law Office of Edward Misleh
Skip to content
  • Home Page
  • Areas of Practice
    • Divorce Attorney
    • Domestic Violence Attorney
    • Child Custody Attorney
    • Child Support Attorney
    • Spousal Support Attorney
    • Community Property Attorney
    • Guardianship Attorney
    • Family Law Attorney
    • Adoption Attorney
    • California Attorney Blog
  • Resources
    • Forms
    • California Attorney Blog
    • Our Office
    • Website Search
    • Site Map
  • The Law Offices
  • Contact Us

-

Home » Areas of Practice » Domestic Violence » Domestic Violence Restraining Order

Domestic Violence Restraining Order

Posted on October 25, 2019February 7, 2020 by Editor

California Court of Appeals has ruled that renewal of a DVRO does not require a party to show new evidence of abuse or threatened abuse, or that any new abuse is physical in nature, and that evidence of abuse perpetrated on children is relevant to a renewal. Perez v Torres, 206 Cal.App.4th 418 (2012); 141 Cal. Rptr. 3d 758.

The Law Offices of Edward Misleh, APC is a law firm that in Northern California with the services they need and deserve when addressing their legal matters. Our firm handles all aspects of California restraining orders, to include: domestic violence restraining orders, protective orders, criminal protective orders, and emergency orders. Call now our Lawyer Hotline. Call now 321-951-9164.

Domestic Violence Restraining Order

A California domestic violence restraining order is an order that helps protect you from someone with whom you have a close relationship and who is abusive.  It may contain orders telling that person what they cannot do to you.  It may also have orders that tell that person to stay a certain distance away from you.


Case History

My children are being abused.  How do I get a restraining order to protect my children?

In February 2010, Perez filed a request for a California domestic violence restraining order against Torres-Hernandez to stay away from her and their two children, eight and two-year-old daughters, as well as Perez’s ten-year-old son from a previous relationship.  Perez and Torres-Hernandez had been in a relationship for 10 years and Perez claimed many instances of physical and emotional abuse by Torres-Hernandez.  She wrote on the request for the California domestic violence restraining order that Torres-Hernandez was going to kill her and take her children away.  In her declaration, she recounted an incident where Torres-Hernandez became angry and yelled “fuck you bitch” at her in front of the children. She said the following day, Torres-Hernandez called her hundreds of times.  A few days later, Torres-Hernandez came into her home while she was gone, and without her permission.  Later that same day, in the middle of the night, Torres-Hernandez again broke into her home while everyone was sleeping.  He startled a friend who was sleeping on the couch and rushed out.  She said that she was afraid because Torres-Hernandez was capable of becoming violent and had hit her many times in the past.

The court held a hearing and both Perez and Torres-Hernandez testified.  The court issued a three-year restraining order preventing Torres-Hernandez from doing the following things to Perez: “[h]arass, attack, strike, threaten, assault (sexually or otherwise), hit, follow, stalk, molest, destroy personal property, disturb the peace, keep under surveillance, or block movements.”  The order provided sole physical custody of the children to Perez, and weekend visitation with Torres-Hernandez.  The restraining order expired on March 16, 2013.


Petition to Modify a Domestic Violence Restraining Order

In September 2011, Perez filed a petition to modify the restraining order to include protection for her three children.  Perez claimed that during Torres-Hernandez’s visits with the children, he had physically abused them.  After a visit with Torres-Hernandez, their younger daughter had bruising on her chest.  The daughter told Perez that Torres-Hernandez was angry and hit her.  Torres-Hernandez was arrested after the incident.

Perez explained that Torres-Hernandez had been abusive to her throughout their relationship but had not previously hit the children.  She said that since the restraining order was issued, Torres-Hernandez had hit the children with his hands or objects, including shoes.  He had previously hit the younger daughter causing bruising on her lip.  Perez claimed that Torres-Hernandez also hit her son with a belt causing a welt on his leg.

The court suspended visitation between Torres-Hernandez and the younger daughter and ordered supervised visitation with the older daughter.  The court amended the order to prohibit Torres-Hernandez from making contact with Perez including phone calls, e-mails, and text messages.


Permanent Renewal of a Domestic Violence Restraining Order

In February 2013, Perez petitioned the court for a permanent renewal of the restraining order.  Perez alleged that Torres-Hernandez had repeatedly violated the order.  He called her from an anonymous number but identified himself as the caller and told her to stop going to court and to stop asking for child support.  She also alleged that Torres-Hernandez was facing child abuse charges for hitting their younger daughter.

The court held a contested hearing on March 13, 2013.  At the outset, Torres-Hernandez explained that the criminal case for his conduct toward his daughter had been dismissed.  When asked by the court, Perez explained that the district attorney’s office had told her that the charges were dropped because their daughter was too young to testify against Torres-Hernandez.

Perez testified that she sought to have the restraining order extended permanently because “I have a lot of fear of him.”  She said she feared physical abuse both against herself and her children.  Even with the restraining order in place, he had continued to call her, text her, and threaten her.  He had also mistreated their daughters.  She explained Torres-Hernandez had hit their younger daughter on the chest causing bruising.  During Perez’s testimony, the court initially advised her counsel that any testimony about the abuse towards their daughter was not relevant.  The court stated the standard to renew or extend the order “has to do with whether she has a reasonable apprehension of future abuse.  The abuse is as to her as opposed to the children.”

Counsel argued it was relevant to Perez’s reasonable apprehension of future abuse and she was seeking to modify the order to add the children as protected parties.

The court then allowed further testimony.  Perez testified that Torres-Hernandez had hit their younger daughter once with a shoe, and hit her on another occasion causing a swollen lip.  He had also grabbed the older daughter causing a red mark on her wrist. Perez stated:  “He is a very aggressive person, and I, frankly, have a lot of fear for my own safety and that of my children.”  She said the fact he hit her children made her more afraid of him because he had broken the law.

She testified that she received a call from Torres-Hernandez in November 2012 and he threatened her, saying “Fuck you, bitch,” and told her to stop going to court to ask for support and custody of their daughters. She said it made her “very fearful” because he was not supposed to call or text her.  He also sent her a text after the call, from an anonymous number, but it made reference to the content of the prior call. She said the text made her feel “scared and helpless.”  He sent her texts on February 4, 2013, the date the criminal charges for hitting their younger daughter were dismissed. The first text stated:  “Ha, ha, ha. Poor kids for having a crazy mom like you.  Was it worth putting your kids through all that trouble and end up with nothing?”  She received another anonymous text that said “the kids pay the consequences,” and remarked that he was about to have the son he always wanted.  Perez testified that text messages created “a lot of fear.”

When she found out the criminal charges had been dismissed, she felt “[v]ery scared, very terrified, because now he feels that he can break the law.”

Perez testified that she did not want him bothering her, calling her, or sending her messages because she was “very scared because he has been doing things that have affected me.”  She stated she was afraid Torres-Hernandez would cause her future physical harm if the order were not renewed.  She said that she felt helpless “because in spite of the fact that there’s a restraining order, he continues to do that and because the law hasn’t been able to stop him.  So I feel helpless and fearful at the same time.”

The court asked Perez if she had been threatened since the restraining order had been issued, and she responded that his calls were threatening. She said that he told her “You’re going pay for it.”  She was not sure “exactly what he can do, but I’m afraid.”  Counsel sought to introduce the testimony of Perez’s father, who had seen the bruising on the younger daughter, but the court excluded the testimony as “redundant.”  Torres-Hernandez denied contacting Perez by phone or sending her text messages.  He claimed Perez was making these claims in order to get a green card.


Court Ruling

The court found “there is no basis to extend this order on a permanent basis.  I find that there is insufficient evidence as to a reasonable belief of continued abuse.  There is no evidence before the Court that there has been actual abuse within the time period that the restraining order has been issued.”  The court found that the abuse, if true, had been toward the children, but that was irrelevant as to the abuse alleged by Perez “because it does not speak to any abuse that Ms. Perez has been subjected to.”  Perez has been subjected to “annoying phone calls. I wouldn’t let it rise to the level of a pattern of harassment, but the phone calls are intended to annoy her.”

The court stated it did not find Torres-Hernandez’s testimony to be “particularly persuasive,” and “there may be some credibility issues.”  The court found that Torres-Hernandez made the phone calls and sent the text messages in violation of the restraining order, but that this was not enough to extend the California domestic violence restraining order.

The court stated:  “Abuse is not merely simply annoying or harassing—occasional harassing phone calls intended to annoy the other person.  Abuse is not exerting your rights under the law to say, you know ‘If you keep going to court, you may lose out.  The kids may—they’re tired of putting up with a crazy mother.’ ”  Stating an opinion does not rise to the level of a threat of violence or actual infliction of violence.  Abuse must be “violence or the infliction of violence on an individual.”  Therefore, there was insufficient evidence of a reasonable belief of continued abuse to support extension of the order.

Since at the time of the hearing the California domestic violence restraining order was set to expire in a few days, and given the court’s denial of the requested renewal, it did not consider the request that the order be modified to include the children as protected parties.


CALL NOW TO MAKE AN APPOINTMENT

321-951-9164

For more information on domestic violence, click on one of the following links:

Mutual Domestic Violence Restraining Orders

California Restraining Order

California Restraining Order

California Criminal Protective Order

Domestic Violence Arrest

California Domestic Violence Bail

California Divorce Attorney

California Family Code

Law Offices of Edward Misleh

Web Site Search

This disclaimer provides that any information provided on this website by The Law  Offices of Edward Misleh, APC is strictly informational and should not be interpreted or considered as legal advice.  If you have a legal concern, you should contact our office to speak with a licensed California Attorney.  Delaying to contact an attorney could result in harm to your interests.

Attorney-Client Relationship

No Attorney-Client Relationship Created by use of this Website: Neither your receipt of information from this website, nor your use of this website to contact The Law Offices of Edward Misleh, APC or one of its attorneys creates an attorney-client relationship between you and The Law Offices of Edward Misleh, APC. As a matter of policy, The Law Offices of Edward Misleh, APC does not accept a new client without first investigating for possible conflicts of interests and obtaining a signed engagement letter. Accordingly, you should not use this website to provide confidential information about a legal matter of yours to The Law Offices of Edward Misleh, APC.

Contacting us by telephone, email or other means, or transmitting information to us, will not establish an attorney-client relationship. The attorney-client relationship can only be established after we have determined that we are able and willing to accept the engagement and we have entered into a written engagement agreement. Until then, do not send any confidential information to us unless we specifically request it. Information communicated without such authorization may not be treated as confidential, secret or otherwise be protected from disclosure, and The Law Offices of Edward Misleh, APC will not be precluded from representing parties adverse to the sender of such information in any matter.

No Legal Advice Intended

This website includes information about legal issues and legal developments. Such materials are for informational purposes only and may not reflect the most current legal developments. These informational materials are not intended, and should not be taken, as legal advice on any particular set of facts or circumstances. You should contact an attorney for advice on specific legal problems.

No Guarantee of Results

Many of the practice summaries and individual attorney biography on this website describe results obtained in matters handled for The Law Offices of Edward Misleh, APC clients. These descriptions are meant only to provide information about the activities and experience of our attorney. They are not intended as a guarantee that the same or similar results can be obtained in every matter undertaken by our attorney; and, you should not assume that a similar result can be obtained in a legal matter of interest to you. The outcome of a particular matter can depend on a variety of factors—including the specific factual and legal circumstances, the ability of opposing counsel, and, often, unexpected developments beyond the control of any client or attorney.

Third Party Websites

As a convenience, this website may provide links to third-party websites. Such linked websites are not under the control of The Law Offices of Edward Misleh, APC, and The Law Offices of Edward Misleh, APC assumes no responsibility for the accuracy of the contents of such websites.

No Warranty or Liability

The information in this site is provided “AS-IS,” without representation or warranty of any kind, either express or implied, including, without limitation, any representation or warranty as to suitability, reliability, applicability, accuracy, merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, non-infringement, result, outcome or any other matter. We do not represent or warrant that such information is or will be up-to-date, complete or accurate, or free from errors, viruses, spyware, malware, adware, worms or other malicious code, or will function to meet your requirements.

You agree that we are not liable to you or others in any way for any damages of any kind or under any theory arising from this site, your access to or use of or reliance on the information in this site, including, but not limited to, liability or damages under contract, tort or other theories or any damages caused by lost data, malicious code, denials of service (including computer crashes), business interruption or other commercial damages or losses, even if we may have been advised of the possibility of such damages.

Authorized Practice of Law

The jurisdiction in which our attorney is licensed to practice is in the State of California. The ability of our attorney to engage in any activities on behalf of a client outside that attorney’s state of licensure is subject to state statutes and professional codes and court rules. The Law Offices of Edward Misleh, APC does not seek, and this website is not intended to solicit, legal employment outside our attorney’s states of licensure that would constitute the unauthorized practice of law.

Intellectual Property Owned by The Law Offices of Edward Misleh, APC

Except as otherwise noted, all trademarks, photographs and other artwork, video clips, and written materials used in this site are protected by copyright laws and are owned or licensed by The Law Offices of Edward Misleh, APC. You may download information from our site for your temporary, personal, non-commercial use only. None of these items may be copied, reproduced, downloaded, posted, transmitted, broadcast or otherwise distributed in any manner without our prior written consent.

Privacy Policy
Site Map
Avvo - Rate your Lawyer. Get Free Legal Advice.
We gladly accept Visa, MasterCard, Discover, American Express.
Copyright 2023 The Law Offices of Edward Misleh, APC
Web site hosting by All Brevard Web Sites