California Court of Appeal Reverses Domestic Violence Restraining Order After Respondent Was Denied Opportunity to Testify

Decker Law Obtains Reversal of DVRO Issued Following One-Sided Evidentiary Hearing

The California Court of Appeal recently reversed a domestic violence restraining order (DVRO) after concluding that the respondent was denied a meaningful opportunity to present evidence in her defense. The decision addresses fundamental due process protections in DVRO proceedings, Family Code section 217's requirement that courts receive live testimony, and the right of parties to testify before a restraining order is issued.

Decker Law represented the appellant and successfully obtained reversal of the restraining order.

Background of the Case

The petitioner sought a domestic violence restraining order against his former girlfriend under California's Domestic Violence Prevention Act (DVPA). The trial court initially issued a temporary restraining order and scheduled a hearing to determine whether a longer-term restraining order should issue.

Before the hearing, the respondent filed a written response denying the allegations, submitted a sworn declaration disputing the petitioner's claims, identified herself as a witness, and filed an exhibit list supporting her position.

At the evidentiary hearing, the court questioned the petitioner regarding the alleged incidents and then permitted cross-examination by the respondent's counsel. After the petitioner finished presenting his evidence, the court asked whether there were additional witnesses. Counsel responded that there were none, believing the court would question the respondent in the same manner it had questioned the petitioner.

Instead, the trial court immediately granted a five-year domestic violence restraining order without allowing the respondent to testify or present any evidence in her defense. When the respondent and her counsel attempted to explain that they expected the court would hear from her, the court declined to reopen the hearing and entered the restraining order.

The respondent appealed.

The Legal Issue

The primary issue on appeal was whether the trial court violated the respondent's due process rights by issuing a domestic violence restraining order without allowing her to testify or present evidence.

Family Code section 217 generally requires family courts to receive relevant live testimony at evidentiary hearings. California courts have repeatedly recognized that the right to testify and present evidence is a fundamental component of due process.

The Court of Appeal was therefore asked to determine whether the hearing provided the respondent a meaningful opportunity to be heard.

The Court of Appeal's Decision

The Court of Appeal reversed.

The court explained that Family Code section 217 requires courts to receive relevant live testimony at DVRO hearings and that denying a party the opportunity to testify is reversible error.

The appellate court found that both the respondent and her attorney reasonably believed the trial court intended to question the respondent after hearing from the petitioner. The respondent had identified herself as a witness before the hearing, submitted a declaration outlining her testimony, and promptly objected when it became apparent that the court intended to rule without hearing from her.

Under those circumstances, the Court of Appeal concluded that the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to reopen the hearing and permit the respondent to testify.

The Proceeding Was Improperly One-Sided

The Court of Appeal further noted that the trial court effectively relied on the petitioner's declaration while refusing to hear testimony from the respondent.

The trial court awarded the petitioner monetary damages based on information contained in his declaration, even though that information was not established through live testimony during the hearing. At the same time, the court refused to allow the respondent to testify regarding the allegations against her.

The appellate court concluded that the resulting proceeding was fundamentally unfair because the respondent was denied a meaningful opportunity to present her side of the dispute.

Why This Decision Matters

Domestic violence restraining orders can have significant consequences, including personal conduct restrictions, stay-away orders, firearm prohibitions, and impacts on child custody proceedings.

This decision reinforces that even in expedited DVRO proceedings, courts must afford both parties a meaningful opportunity to present evidence. A court cannot hear only one side of the dispute and then issue a restraining order without allowing the opposing party to testify.

The opinion also highlights the importance of Family Code section 217 and confirms that live testimony remains a critical component of many family law evidentiary hearings.

Contact Decker Law

Decker Law represents clients throughout California in family law appeals, domestic violence restraining order appeals, child custody appeals, writ proceedings, and other complex appellate matters. If you are considering an appeal involving a DVRO or another family court ruling, contact Decker Law to discuss your appellate options.