Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Silva Agasyan and Henrik Agasyan were married for approximately 17 years. After both sought domestic violence restraining orders in December 2019, the family court held a six-day evidentiary trial in August 2020, granted Silva a four-year DVRO, and denied Henrik's request. The order initially protected both daughters, Charisse and Shyla, but was later modified to remove Shyla. The court found Henrik's insults, profanity, and threats constituted intimidation and emotional abuse, along with coercive control and physical assaults; these are the original court's findings, not new appellate findings.
Silva timely sought renewal in June 2024. Her declaration described continuing litigation, custody disputes, financial pressure, restricted contact with one daughter, and fear tied to Henrik's guns. Henrik opposed renewal and separately sought his own DVRO, alleging harassment and fabricated texts. The appellate court took judicial notice of Henrik's June 2024 application and, on its own motion, of a one-year DVRO issued in March 2026 protecting Henrik from Silva.
At a July 2024 scheduling hearing, Silva asked that Henrik's request be heard first; the court instead scheduled her renewal first. At the October 8, 2024 hearing, the court heard the matters separately, over Silva's mid-hearing request for a joint trial. After admitting both parties' declarations, the court denied renewal and dissolved Silva's DVRO. Silva appealed; Henrik did not appear.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal affirmed. Silva forfeited her argument that the competing requests had to be heard together: she initially favored hearing Henrik's matter first, did not object when the court announced separate hearings, and raised the joint-hearing request only midway through Henrik's examination. She also showed no prejudice—she examined Henrik about welfare checks, a workplace subpoena, civil litigation, bankruptcy proceedings, his letter to federal authorities, his claim that the original texts were false, and his custody-interference allegations—and the later DVRO protecting Henrik made it unlikely his hearing evidence would have helped her.
The court rejected Silva's claim that the family court applied a physical-violence standard. Although the hearing included references to "violence" and "fear for her life," the court accepted counsel's correction and ruled in terms of whether a reasonable person would fear continued "abuse." It also held the family court need not recite each Ritchie factor expressly; the record showed consideration of the original abuse, Silva's declaration and testimony, and Henrik's post-order conduct. Silva separately forfeited her time-limits complaint by failing to develop it under a distinct heading with authority.
Finally, the evidence did not compel renewal as a matter of law. The family court's flight-risk findings prevented characterizing Henrik's travel application as necessarily abusive, and unsuccessful contempt requests, a dismissed civil action, bankruptcy litigation, and a report to federal authorities did not by themselves establish harassment; the court could credit Henrik's good-faith explanation. Silva's testimony about fear, guns, stalking, and denied contact with Shyla could support renewal if believed, but the family court was not required to credit it.
Key Takeaways
- A DVRO renewal does not require proof of new abuse, but the protected party must show a reasonable apprehension of future abuse.
- Forfeiture and lack of prejudice independently defeated Silva's challenge to separate hearings on the competing requests.
- Isolated hearing references to violence did not show legal error where the court accepted the correction and ruled in terms of continued abuse.
- A family court need not expressly discuss every Ritchie factor when the record shows their substance was considered.
- The appellate court will not reweigh credibility or treat unsuccessful litigation as automatically proving abusive intent.
Why It Matters
The decision applies the demanding standard for a party who lost below on an issue bearing her burden of proof: reversal required evidence compelling renewal as a matter of law, not merely some supporting evidence. Credibility and weight remained with the family court.
The opinion resolves the competing-requests dispute on forfeiture and prejudice without deciding whether the primary-aggressor rule governs a renewal paired with an initial DVRO application. It took judicial notice of the March 2026 DVRO protecting Henrik, which informed the prejudice analysis. The disposition affirms the denial of Silva's renewal and orders her to bear her own costs on appeal.