Decker Law Successfully Obtains Reversal of Five-Year Domestic Violence Restraining Order

Decker Law successfully obtained a reversal of a five-year Domestic Violence Restraining Order (DVRO) after the California Court of Appeal concluded that the trial court denied the restrained party a meaningful opportunity to present evidence in her defense.

The Court of Appeal held that the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to reopen the evidentiary hearing after a misunderstanding prevented the restrained party from testifying. The appellate court further concluded that the proceeding violated fundamental principles of due process because the court relied exclusively on the petitioner's evidence when issuing the restraining order.

Background of the Case

The case arose after the petitioner sought a Domestic Violence Restraining Order under California's Domestic Violence Prevention Act (DVPA).

The trial court initially issued a temporary restraining order and later scheduled an evidentiary hearing to determine whether a permanent restraining order should issue. Before the hearing, the respondent filed a sworn declaration disputing the allegations, identified herself as a witness, and timely submitted witness and exhibit lists as ordered by the court.

At the hearing, however, the trial court questioned the petitioner and permitted cross-examination by defense counsel. After the petitioner rested, defense counsel responded "No" when the court asked whether there were additional witnesses, believing that the court intended to question the respondent directly—as it had done with the petitioner. The court immediately issued a five-year restraining order without allowing the respondent to testify. When both the respondent and her attorney explained that they had misunderstood the court's procedure and requested an opportunity for her to testify, the court refused and ended the hearing.

The respondent appealed, and Decker Law represented her before the Court of Appeal.

The Legal Issue

The appeal presented an important procedural question:

Can a trial court issue a long-term domestic violence restraining order after hearing only one party's live testimony when the opposing party intended to testify but was denied that opportunity because of a misunderstanding regarding the court's procedures?

The Court of Appeal answered that question no.

Read the Court's Opinion here.

Please note that this is an unpublished opinion. Under California Rule of Court 8.1115, unpublished opinions generally may not be cited as legal precedent. It is provided here for informational purposes regarding the issues addressed by the Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal's Decision

The Respondent Was Denied a Meaningful Opportunity to Be Heard

The Court of Appeal emphasized that hearings on requests for permanent domestic violence restraining orders are governed by Family Code section 217, which generally requires courts to receive relevant live testimony.

The court observed that the respondent had consistently demonstrated an intent to testify. She had filed a sworn declaration, listed herself as a witness, submitted exhibits, and immediately objected when the court announced its ruling without hearing her testimony. Under those circumstances, the appellate court concluded that neither the respondent nor her attorney knowingly waived the right to present evidence.

The Trial Court Should Have Reopened the Hearing

The Court of Appeal found that the misunderstanding regarding the order of proof was both genuine and understandable.

Rather than allowing the respondent to testify after the misunderstanding became apparent, the trial court refused to reopen the hearing and entered a five-year restraining order based solely on the petitioner's evidence.

The appellate court held that this refusal deprived the respondent of a meaningful opportunity to be heard and constituted an abuse of discretion.

The Proceeding Was Impermissibly One-Sided

The Court of Appeal also found an additional due process violation.

Although the trial court did not permit the respondent to testify or rely upon her declaration, it relied on the petitioner's declaration when issuing the restraining order, including awarding $600 in damages that had not been established through live testimony.

The appellate court concluded that the resulting proceeding was fundamentally unfair because the trial court considered only one side's evidence before imposing a five-year restraining order.

The Result

The Court of Appeal reversed the domestic violence restraining order and remanded the matter for a new evidentiary hearing, allowing both parties the opportunity to fully present their evidence.

Why This Decision Matters

Domestic violence restraining orders can have significant and lasting consequences, including restrictions on personal liberty, firearm ownership, employment opportunities, and family law proceedings.

This decision reinforces that courts must provide both parties with a meaningful opportunity to present evidence before issuing long-term restraining orders. Even in busy family law calendars, procedural fairness and due process cannot be sacrificed for efficiency.

The opinion also emphasizes that when a misunderstanding occurs during an evidentiary hearing, trial courts should carefully consider whether reopening the proceedings is necessary to ensure a fair hearing.

Contact Decker Law

Decker Law represents clients throughout California in family law appeals, restraining order appeals, writ proceedings, and complex appellate litigation. If a domestic violence restraining order was issued after an unfair hearing or significant procedural error, contact Decker Law to discuss your appellate options.