Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Megan Goblirsch obtained a three-year domestic violence restraining order (DVRO) against her then-husband, Clinton Goblirsch, in March 2022. The couple, married nearly 11 years and parents of two minor daughters, divorced in December 2022. Under a June 2023 custody order, Megan had sole legal and physical custody while Clinton had supervised visitation. The 2022 DVRO named Megan the sole protected party and included an order to not abuse, a no-contact order permitting only brief and peaceful communication about court-ordered visits, and a stay-away order requiring Clinton to remain at least 100 yards from Megan, her home, workplace, and vehicle.
In March 2025, Megan requested a five-year renewal. The matter went to a bench trial on December 15, 2025, where Megan was the only witness; Clinton, representing himself, did not testify or present evidence. Megan described a Christmas Eve 2024 incident in which a friend of Clinton's dropped off gift-wrapped presents at her home, a June 2023 text message in which Clinton blamed her for the custody outcome, and a 2021 incident in which Clinton appeared at the girls' gymnastics while a temporary restraining order was in effect. She testified that Clinton had not taken accountability, continued to blame her for his limited access to the girls, and that she feared retaliation if the DVRO expired. The trial court found Megan entertained an actual and reasonable apprehension of future abuse and renewed the DVRO for five years. Clinton appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal affirmed. It reviewed the renewal decision for abuse of discretion and the underlying factual findings for substantial evidence. Under Family Code section 6345, subdivision (a), a DVRO may be renewed without a showing of further abuse since the original order. Under Ritchie v. Konrad, in contested cases the trial court should renew the order if it finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the protected party entertains a reasonable apprehension of future abuse—a standard that does not require proof that future abuse is more likely than not, only a sufficient risk that the apprehension is genuine and reasonable.
The court concluded substantial evidence supported the finding. The record showed ongoing, contentious custody proceedings; Clinton's failure to take accountability and his texts blaming Megan for separating him from their daughters; and Megan's testimony that the parties had not moved on and that she feared retaliation if the order lapsed. Because Clinton presented no evidence, there was limited evidence of burdens on him. The court also held that alleged violations of the 2022 DVRO were legally irrelevant to renewal under section 6345, although it observed that Clinton had in any event violated the order by sending a text unrelated to court-ordered visits and by arguably disturbing Megan's peace through the gift delivery.
The court rejected Clinton's judicial-bias claim as forfeited because he neither objected nor moved to disqualify the judge after the court disclosed a professional connection to Megan's mother, and as inadequately developed; even on the merits, he showed no reasonable doubt about impartiality. His constitutional claims were likewise forfeited for failure to raise them below and to support them with authority. The court noted Clinton received due process through notice and a trial, and that the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment does not apply in civil proceedings.
Key Takeaways
- A DVRO may be renewed without proof of further abuse since the original order, but in contested cases the protected party must prove a reasonable apprehension of future abuse by a preponderance of the evidence.
- The reasonable-apprehension standard requires a sufficient risk of future abuse, not a showing that abuse is more likely than not to occur.
- Courts may consider the factual predicate for the original order, significant changes in circumstances, and the burdens the order imposes on the restrained party.
- A judicial-bias claim is forfeited on appeal absent a trial-court objection or motion to disqualify, and conclusory arguments without supporting authority fail.
- Constitutional claims not raised in the trial court are forfeited, and the Eighth Amendment does not apply in civil DVRO renewal proceedings.
Why It Matters
This unpublished decision reaffirms the broad discretion trial courts have to renew DVROs under Family Code section 6345 and the deference appellate courts give under the substantial-evidence and abuse-of-discretion standards, emphasizing that the key consideration is the protected party's reasonable fear of future abuse rather than the type or timing of past abuse. It also underscores the importance of preservation: Clinton's failure to object to the judge, raise constitutional grounds in the trial court, or support his claims with legal authority forfeited those issues on appeal.