California Court of Appeal Reverses Domestic Violence Restraining Order After Trial Court Refused to Hear Respondent's Testimony
Obtaining a domestic violence restraining order (DVRO) is a serious matter. A permanent restraining order can affect child custody, employment, firearm rights, housing, and a person's reputation for years.
Just as important as protecting genuine victims is ensuring that both parties receive a fair hearing before a court issues a long-term restraining order.
Our office recently represented the appellant in a California Court of Appeal case that reinforces this fundamental principle of due process.
Every Party Has the Right to Be Heard
In this case, the trial court allowed the petitioner to testify and present evidence supporting his request for a domestic violence restraining order.
However, before the respondent was given the opportunity to testify, the court announced its ruling and issued a five-year restraining order.
Although the respondent had filed a sworn declaration, witness list, and exhibits before the hearing, she was never permitted to present live testimony explaining her side of the dispute.
After the court announced its ruling, both the respondent and her attorney explained that they understood the court intended to question the respondent after the petitioner's testimony. The trial court declined to reopen the hearing.
The Court of Appeal Reversed
The California Court of Appeal unanimously reversed the restraining order, holding that the evidentiary hearing had become "improperly one-sided" because only one party was permitted to present live evidence.
The Court emphasized several important principles:
A party's right to testify on his or her own behalf is fundamental.
Family Code section 217 generally requires trial courts to receive relevant live testimony during evidentiary hearings.
Denying a party the opportunity to testify constitutes reversible error.
Trial courts must provide both parties with a meaningful opportunity to present evidence before issuing a long-term restraining order.
The Court also noted that the trial court relied on portions of the petitioner's written declaration while refusing to hear the respondent's testimony, further contributing to the unfairness of the proceeding.
The restraining order was reversed, and the matter was remanded for a new evidentiary hearing.
Read the Court's Opinion
The Court of Appeal's opinion is available 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Please note that this is an unpublished opinion.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.
What This Means for People Facing a DVRO
An adverse ruling at a restraining order hearing is not always the final word.
California trial courts must afford both parties a meaningful opportunity to present testimony and evidence. When a court fails to provide that opportunity, an appeal may be appropriate.
Not every unfavorable ruling can be successfully appealed. However, when a trial court commits legal error or denies a party fundamental due process, appellate review may provide a remedy.
Our Appellate Practice
Appeals are not second trials. They require careful analysis of the record, identification of legal error, and persuasive written advocacy before the Court of Appeal.
Decker Law represents clients throughout California in appellate matters, including domestic violence restraining order appeals, family law appeals, and other civil appeals.
If you believe a trial court denied you a fair hearing or committed reversible legal error, contact Decker Law to discuss whether an appeal may be available.