Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
D.A. and S.Z. married in 2023 and drove to Texas, but conflict arose almost immediately. S.Z. split her time between Texas and California, where her parents lived, and ultimately remained in California through a high-risk pregnancy. About a month after their daughter's birth, D.A. had Texas divorce papers served on S.Z. in July 2024. On August 1, 2024, S.Z. sought a domestic violence restraining order in Los Angeles County Superior Court. Her declaration described D.A. brandishing a knife in April 2024 while she was in her third trimester, keeping unsecured firearms and a machete, calling her "evil," acting erratically, trying to take their breastfeeding child, threatening to take the child to Texas, and cutting off financial support and account access.
The trial court granted a temporary restraining order and held an evidentiary hearing on September 30, 2024. S.Z., her sister, and her father testified in support of the longer-term order, while D.A. testified against it. S.Z. described her terror during the knife incident, D.A. forcefully grabbing her wrist over a phone alarm, his attempt to take the child while she breastfed, and his statement to her father to "get a gun and kill me." Her father testified that the family kept watch, used the house alarm, and blocked D.A.'s car to prevent him from leaving with the child. D.A. denied brandishing a knife, said he was expressing emotional pain, denied trying to rip the child away, and disputed the gun statement, but was impeached with his own declaration referencing a gun. He also acknowledged closing the bank account S.Z. could access.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal affirmed. It reviewed the DVRO for abuse of discretion, the choice of legal standard de novo, and the factual findings for substantial evidence. The court rejected D.A.'s claim that the trial court improperly focused on subjective fear rather than objective reasonableness. It explained that the Domestic Violence Prevention Act also covers disturbing the peace, defined by the totality of the circumstances as conduct destroying mental or emotional calm, and that reasonable apprehension incorporates a genuine, subjective component. D.A.'s reliance on Cueto v. Dozier was misplaced because that case concerned renewal under Family Code section 6345. His reply-brief challenge to one sentence in the trial court's explanation was forfeited, and in any event the sentence concerned D.A.'s irrelevant subjective intent and the statement's effect on the listener, while the trial court elsewhere used objective standards.
The appellate court also found no prejudicial error in the trial court's citation of In re I.B. to explain why continued affection, socializing, and not calling police did not negate abuse, particularly because D.A. had not objected. On the evidence, the court held that the knife episode during S.Z.'s high-risk pregnancy, threats to take the child to Texas, the attempt to grab the child while S.Z. was breastfeeding, the gun statement, and the bank and Amazon account conduct supported findings of reasonable apprehension, disturbed peace, and coercive control. Credibility conflicts were resolved in favor of the judgment. The court rejected the argument that objective corroboration was required because a DVRO may rest on the requesting person's testimony alone, though texts and other witnesses also corroborated S.Z. An undeveloped argument about collateral custody consequences was forfeited. Because the court affirmed, it did not overturn the attorney fee order. The parties were ordered to bear their own appellate costs.
Key Takeaways
- A DVRO may be supported by conduct causing reasonable apprehension of imminent serious bodily injury and by conduct disturbing the other party's peace under the totality of the circumstances.
- The speaker's subjective belief that a statement was not threatening does not control the inquiry; the statement's effect on the listener and the genuineness of the listener's apprehension matter.
- Continued contact, affection, socializing, or not calling police does not necessarily negate evidence of ongoing domestic abuse.
- A restraining order can rest solely on the requesting person's testimony, and appellate courts do not reweigh credibility or resolve evidence conflicts against the judgment.
- New or undeveloped appellate arguments may be forfeited, including arguments first raised in a reply brief, and self-represented litigants are subject to appellate rules.
Why It Matters
The decision applies established DVPA principles to a record combining pregnancy-related fear, child-removal threats, weapons-related statements, and financial control. It underscores that abuse is not limited to completed physical violence and that courts may assess the combined effect of conduct on the protected parties' safety and emotional calm.
The opinion also illustrates the practical limits of appellate challenges to credibility-based DVRO rulings. Once the trial court credited S.Z. and her witnesses, the appellate court's role was to determine whether substantial evidence supported those findings, not whether D.A.'s contrary account could have supported a different result.