Reported / Citable
Background
R.M. and A.G., a former couple who met at Pasadena City College, each sought a domestic violence restraining order (DVRO) against the other under California’s Domestic Violence Prevention Act (DVPA). Their relationship had involved allegations of serious physical abuse by both parties — A.G. alleged repeated physical assaults by R.M.; R.M. alleged scratch marks from A.G. and a campaign of incessant contact and harassment after their December 2023 breakup that included over a thousand phone, text, and social media messages in a matter of weeks.
After the breakup, R.M. changed his social media usernames to phrases such as “A.G.ispsycho,” “ketaminewhor[e],” and “pleasekillurself” — the last posted shortly after A.G. asked him whether he wanted her to kill herself. He also posted photographs taken during their relationship, including intimate images of A.G., sent follow requests to acquaintances, and made phone calls to A.G.’s mother disclosing personal information about her. A.G. submitted evidence of these posts as part of her DVRO petition.
At the combined evidentiary hearing, the trial court repeatedly directed R.M.’s testimony to focus only on A.G.’s direct post-breakup contact with him, and then denied A.G.’s DVRO petition while granting R.M.’s. A.G. appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Second District reversed and remanded. The court held the trial court abused its discretion by failing to consider whether R.M.’s indirect contact with A.G. — his social media posts, the calls to her mother, and the posting of intimate photographs — amounted to conduct that “disturbed her peace” within the meaning of the DVPA. Under the DVPA, “abuse” includes behavior that destroys a person’s mental or emotional calm, not just physical violence. Indirect contact, including through social media directed at a victim’s attention through mutual acquaintances or targeted username changes, can satisfy that standard.
By restricting the testimony and analysis to direct post-breakup contacts alone, the trial court effectively excluded the most potentially significant evidence of ongoing harassment. That was legal error requiring a new hearing.
Because the parties had filed mutual DVRO petitions and the outcome of each petition is intertwined, the court also directed the trial court to vacate the DVRO it had already entered in R.M.’s favor against A.G. At the new hearing, the court must evaluate both petitions together and determine whether one party was the “primary aggressor” under Family Code section 6305 — a statute that generally prohibits courts from issuing mutual DVROs unless one party’s conduct was primarily in self-defense.
Key Takeaways
- Indirect contact through social media — targeted username changes, public humiliation posts visible to mutual connections, and posting of intimate images — can constitute “disturbing the peace” under the DVPA and must be considered in a DVRO hearing.
- Trial courts must not artificially limit the scope of testimony in DVRO cases to direct physical contact; the statute’s “abuse” definition is broad and includes conduct that destroys emotional or mental calm.
- When parties file mutual DVRO petitions, the court must address both together and apply the primary aggressor analysis under Family Code section 6305 — it generally cannot grant simultaneous DVROs against both parties without finding one acted primarily in self-defense.
- Social media evidence — screenshots of posts, username changes, and indirect message campaigns — is squarely relevant in DVRO proceedings and should be preserved and submitted by counsel early in the case.
- The decision reinforces the importance of presenting the full picture of post-relationship harassment patterns, including technologically mediated abuse, not merely direct communications.
Why It Matters
This decision has real practical importance for survivors of domestic violence in the modern era. Abusers increasingly use social media, intimate image sharing, third-party contacts, and online harassment to terrorize former partners without making direct contact — sometimes specifically to avoid triggering restraining order violations while still inflicting psychological harm. California courts must evaluate all of that conduct when deciding whether to issue a DVRO, and this opinion makes clear that limiting the analysis to direct contact is reversible error.
For family law practitioners, the takeaway is to build a comprehensive record in DVRO proceedings that documents all forms of indirect harassment, not just phone calls and texts. Screenshots, URL records, witness statements from third parties who received calls or messages, and expert testimony on the psychological effects of public humiliation campaigns can all be relevant. The primary aggressor rule under section 6305 also deserves attention in mutual-petition cases — trial courts that grant or deny both petitions without addressing that framework risk reversal.