Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Jason and Nicole Holland married in December 2022 and had a daughter, P.H., in May 2023. Their marriage deteriorated amid tensions over Jason's involvement with his older daughters' travel sports and other disputes. Nicole moved out of the marital home on January 15, 2024, relocating to San Bernardino County with P.H. Jason filed a petition for dissolution of marriage on January 17, 2024, and a request to establish custody orders on May 24, 2024. Both parties filed requests for domestic violence restraining orders against each other. The family court held a combined trial on the DVRO requests and custody issues on February 27, 2025; July 2, 2025; and August 28, 2025.
Nicole's DVRO request centered on an October 8, 2023, argument during which Jason allegedly flipped a coffee table and knocked photos off the wall; a January 12, 2024, incident when Jason moved Nicole's belongings out of their bedroom and canceled their daughter's birthday party; Jason's retention of P.H. for about 10 days in June 2024; and various texts and property disputes. Jason disputed Nicole's account, testifying that he accidentally tipped the coffee table while protecting his daughter and that Nicole lunged at him on January 12. The family court denied both parties' DVRO requests — Nicole's against Jason and Jason's against Nicole — and awarded joint legal and physical custody with an equal week-to-week timeshare, with Jason to have primary physical custody during the school year once P.H. started school. Nicole appealed solely from the denial of her own DVRO request.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal reviewed the denial for abuse of discretion and applied the substantial evidence rule to the factual findings. The court explained that the Domestic Violence Prevention Act defines abuse broadly to include disturbing the peace of the other party, meaning conduct that destroys the mental or emotional calm of the other party based on the totality of the circumstances. The court rejected Nicole's argument that the trial court found her peace was disturbed but improperly applied a reasonable person standard, noting that the trial court expressly determined the evidence did not prove Jason committed acts of domestic violence. Because the family court denied both DVRO requests and Nicole appealed only the denial of her own request, the appellate court's review and affirmance address only Nicole's request.
The court also rejected Nicole's argument that the trial court applied an incorrect objective standard, explaining that the trial court first undertook a threshold inquiry into whether Jason's texts objectively encompassed threats of harm, then considered whether Nicole proved her subjective peace was disturbed. The court found this approach consistent with the DVPA. Substantial evidence supported the finding that Jason did not commit domestic violence, and the trial court properly considered the totality of the circumstances, including the explicit photos Nicole sent Jason and statements by Jason's sister. The court found no abuse of discretion in denying Nicole's DVRO, and Jason Holland is entitled to his costs on appeal.
Key Takeaways
- A trial court's denial of a DVRO is reviewed for abuse of discretion, and its factual findings are reviewed under the substantial evidence rule, which requires the appellate court to accept as true all evidence tending to establish the correctness of the findings and resolve every conflict in favor of the judgment.
- Under the Domestic Violence Prevention Act, abuse includes disturbing the peace of the other party, defined as conduct that destroys the mental or emotional calm of the other party based on the totality of the circumstances, but the DVPA was not enacted to address all disputes between former couples.
- A trial court may properly undertake a threshold inquiry into whether conduct objectively encompasses threats of harm before considering whether the petitioner's subjective peace was disturbed, without applying an incorrect legal standard.
- An express finding that the evidence did not prove acts of domestic violence defeats a contention on appeal that the court found the petitioner's peace was disturbed for purposes of the DVPA.
- Where the family court denies both parties' DVRO requests, an appeal by only one party limits the appellate court's review and affirmance to that party's own request.
Why It Matters
This case illustrates the substantial evidence standard of review for DVRO denials and clarifies that trial courts may properly consider whether conduct objectively constitutes threats of harm as a threshold matter before evaluating whether the petitioner's subjective peace was disturbed. The decision reinforces that the DVPA is not intended to address all marital disputes, and that trial courts have discretion to determine whether conduct rises to the level of abuse under the Act.