Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
S.R. appealed the renewal of a domestic violence restraining order protecting K.C., his former dating partner. The original order followed a November 2022 hearing and prohibited harassment, threats, stalking, surveillance, and direct or indirect contact. It also imposed a 100-yard stay-away requirement covering specified locations and public social gatherings, barred firearm and ammunition possession, and directed S.R. to cease libelous and slanderous communications. The order was valid for two years. K.C. requested an extension in June 2024 and filed an order to show cause for contempt in July 2024 based on alleged violations. Commissioner Van Sickle granted a nonsuit on the contempt matter after finding no evidence had been presented to show cause.
Judge Carol Hubner heard evidence on the extension request in February and June 2025. K.C., S.R., and three other witnesses testified. K.C. described threatening social-media messages, a partially cut motorcycle spark-plug wire, and encounters near her workplace, restaurants, a bar, and a Nevada festival. S.R. disputed the implications of those encounters and said their paths crossed because K.C. traveled to Oxnard locations he frequented. The trial court found that K.C. had established reasonable apprehension of future abuse and renewed the DVRO for five years on June 11, 2025. K.C. did not file a responsive appellate brief, so the appeal was decided on the record, S.R.'s opening brief, and any appellant oral argument.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal affirmed. It reviewed renewal for abuse of discretion and the underlying factual findings for substantial evidence, accepting evidence supporting the order and resolving conflicts and credibility questions in K.C.'s favor. Under Family Code section 6345, a DVRO may be renewed for five or more years, or permanently, without proof of further abuse since the original order. The governing question was whether a preponderance of the evidence showed reasonable apprehension of future abuse, meaning a sufficient probability that a reasonable person in the protected party's circumstances would apprehend abuse without continued protection.
The panel identified substantial evidence supporting that finding. S.R. had threatened to destroy K.C., lived approximately 160 feet from her workplace, and stood outside that workplace gesturing obscenely and screaming. The trial court could also resolve conflicting evidence to conclude that he surveilled her at establishments in Simi Valley and Oxnard, entered a bar where she was present and remained until police told him to leave, and followed her to an out-of-state festival. Those circumstances permitted the conclusion that a reasonable person would apprehend future abuse.
The court rejected S.R.'s argument that renewal improperly disregarded the commissioner's contempt ruling. Renewal did not require evidence that S.R. had violated the existing order or committed a new act of abuse. The contempt nonsuit therefore did not defeat the separate reasonable-apprehension determination. The appellate court affirmed the renewal order and directed each side to bear its own costs on appeal.
Key Takeaways
- A California DVRO may be renewed without proof of a new act of abuse or a violation of the existing order.
- The protected party must establish reasonable apprehension of future abuse by a preponderance of the evidence.
- Threatening messages and repeated appearances near the protected party's workplace and other locations can collectively support renewal.
- Appellate review resolves evidentiary conflicts and credibility questions in favor of the prevailing party rather than reweighing the testimony.
- A nonsuit on a related contempt allegation does not necessarily preclude renewal of the underlying protective order.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the distinct functions of contempt proceedings and DVRO renewal. Although the contempt request ended in a nonsuit, the renewal inquiry focused on whether the evidence established a reasonable apprehension of future abuse, not whether S.R. had committed a new violation. The panel treated the statutory absence of a further-abuse requirement as decisive on that issue.
The opinion also shows how deferential review affects disputes over seemingly ambiguous encounters. S.R. offered innocent explanations and conflicting accounts, but the appellate court did not substitute its own credibility determinations for the trial court's. Viewed together with the threats and workplace conduct, the disputed encounters provided a sufficient evidentiary basis for the five-year renewal.