The Queen’s Bench Bar Association recently joined in a request to publish a decision issued by the California Court of Appeal in In re A.P. (Second Appellate District, Division One). Below is a summary of the case and arguments raised in the request for publication. (This was a joint recommendation to join by the Amicus Briefs and Domestic Violence Committees.)

Mother had filed for a restraining order against Father, based upon, inter alia, domestic violence against her and one of her children. Father violated several times the temporary restraining order that was issued pending a permanent restraining order. The juvenile court, however, denied Mother a permanent restraining order, finding that the parents living separately would accomplish the same result that a restraining order would, and verbally ordered the parents to stay away from each other. (CLETS is the California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System. Restraining orders are entered into the CLETS system for enforcement by law enforcement officers. Verbal “stay-away” orders like in the case here are not entered into the CLETS system and are thus typically not enforced by law enforcement.)

The Court of Appeal found that the juvenile court erred in denying Mother’s restraining order request. Neither party contested that domestic violence occurred, nor did the juvenile court deny the permanent restraining order based on failure to prove that domestic violence occurred. The Court of Appeal held that no longer residing together, and the issuance of a non-CLETS “stay away” order, is not a substitute for the protection of a permanent restraining order, such as law enforcement protection. The Court of Appeal also pointed out that the parties still need to co-parent and require guidance for managing their parenting responsibilities.

The request for publication argues that In re A.P. should be certified for publication because it would be the first published opinion to state several important principles from the Domestic Violence Prevention Act equally apply to the issuance of restraining orders. In particular, it would be the first published opinion to state that in juvenile court 1) violations of a temporary restraining order are abuse when considering whether abuse occurred, 2) physical separation of the parties because they no longer cohabitate is not a basis to deny a survivor the protections of a restraining order, and 3) the court may not issue non-CLETS stay away orders in lieu of a restraining order.

It is important juvenile court judges understand how to appropriately decide restraining order requests brought by the many survivors who seek protection during a dependency case, and this case will help do that.

In re A.P. Publication Request - Final.pdf