In re Marriage of G.E. & I.D (Cal.Ct.App. July 20, 2026)
In July 2026, the California Fourth District Court of Appeal issued a rebuke in a recent family law matter involving a Wife’s request for a Domestic Violence Restraining Order (DVRO). Wife appealed the trial court orders issued during the contested evidentiary hearing, which resulted in not only the dismissal of her Petition for a DVRO but also the termination of the existing Domestic Violence Temporary Restraining Order (DVTRO), which had been in place since the granting of her application for it.
During the hearing, Wife presented detailed testimony as well as audio recording evidence of Husband’s alleged abuse. According to Wife’s testimony, Husband allegedly: hit her, including to the point of unconsciousness, controlled her finances, prohibited her from having personal friendships, banned her from leaving the family home without his permission, threatened to kill her, threatened to take their child away from her, and threatened to have her deported to Nigeria. Husband also allegedly flogged their child with a belt and struck the child’s head, face and body with his hand. Moreover, he threatened to kill the child, including if the child disclosed Husband’s abuse of Wife. In court, Wife also introduced an audio recording of an alleged incident of physical abuse against her by Husband.
After a delay on the final half-day of the hearing, Husband’s counsel orally moved to dismiss “the underlying restraining order” as well as “the entire action” pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 533, which permits a court, upon proper notice, to modify or dissolve a temporary restraining order when the ends of justice would be served by the modification or dissolution. Wife’s counsel argued, inter alia, that CCP Section 533 does not apply to DVRO hearings, and DVRO proceedings involving credible evidence of abuse should be decided on the merits.
The Tentative Ruling
The trial court issued a tentative ruling to dismiss the DVTRO in the interests of justice, citing that the DVTRO had fulfilled its purposes of allowing “for a cooling off period between the parties to ensure that there is not a continuation or repeat of [the] conduct.” The court stated that the parties had taken “a day and a half nearly to do one witness,” admonished counsel “[t]here isn’t unlimited time,” and stated, “it was not the court’s responsibility to control how practitioners conduct their cases.” Thereafter, the court asked Husband, through only four questions, to confirm that he would not do anything that would fall under the definitions of domestic violence towards Wife in the future. Based on Husband’s affirmative responses, the trial court found there was not a “reasonable probability of future unlawful violence or any act under the Domestic Violence Protection Act to necessitate the [temporary] restraining order remaining in place.” The trial court then dissolved the DVTRO without prejudice and shortly afterwards, clarified that it was dismissing the entire DVRO Action “in the interest of justice,” and not merely dissolving the DVTRO, because “[n]either [side] ha[d] completed [its] case in the time allotted by the court.”
Appellate Court Findings
The Appellate Court found that the trial court “manifestly abused its discretion by abruptly dismissing the DVRO petition without resolving it on the merits,” and that it “acted without statutory authority and exceeded the bounds of its inherent authority to control the litigation before it.” The Court went on to raise that the trial court also erred in terminating the DVTRO without advance notice and noted that the “court’s actions are especially worrying because ‘[d]omestic violence is a grievous problem in today’s world, and its victims often have few places to turn. The courts must be sensitive to allegations of domestic violence, root out the truth in each case, and protect victims when possible. Victims should be guided through our judicial system, not herded.’” Citing Monterroso v Moran (2006) 135 Cal.App.4th 732, 738.
The Court rightly commented that the trial court in this case had “not only herded an alleged victim through the judicial system; it closed the courthouse door to her altogether.” It reversed the trial court’s orders dismissing Wife’s DVRO petition and dissolving the DVTRO with instructions to reinstate the DVTRO and conduct further proceedings on the DVRO petition. While in this case the orders were overturned, the DVTRO reinstated, and further proceedings ordered, it is important to note that not all applicants for DVROs have access to resources or the personal freedom with which to mount an appeal. For many applicants, the courthouse door is not just closed, it is locked.