Navarro v. Cervera (Cal. Ct. App., Jan. 22, 2025, No. A169830) 2025 WL 262412, at *1
Summary: Navarro appeals from an order denying her request to renew her domestic violence restraining order (DVRO) against Cervera. Navarro asserts the trial court abused its discretion in concluding her fear of future abuse was unreasonable. The Court of Appeal reversed with directions that the trial court grant the renewal request and decide whether the DVRO should be renewed for five or more years, or permanently.
Background
Navarro and Cervera dated for about eight years and during their relationship, Cervera struggled with her mental health, including diagnoses of borderline personality disorder, general anxiety, and major depressive disorder. Cervera also attempted suicide on multiple occasions during their relationship. Cervera told Navarro that she thought about committing mass shootings in public places. Cervera had been placed on suicide watch and Welfare and Institutions Code section 5150 (section 5150) holds.
Navarro and Cervera broke up in spring 2018. A few months later, at the end of July, Navarro received calls and emails from three members of Cervera’s immediate family stating that Cervera had “disappeared” and they were concerned Cervera “was going to come find [Navarro] and try to hurt [her] and that [Cervera] might turn violent toward [Navarro].”
The Domestic Violence Prevention Act (Fam. Code,2 § 6200 et seq.; DVPA) authorizes the trial court to issue a DVRO “if an affidavit … shows, to the satisfaction of the court, reasonable proof of a past act or acts of abuse.” (§ 6300.) Unde the law “abuse” means intentionally or recklessly causing or attempting to cause bodily injury; sexual assault; placing a person in reasonable apprehension of imminent serious bodily injury to that person or another; or engaging in behavior that could be enjoined pursuant to section 6320. (§ 6203, subds. (a)(1)–(4).) Section 6320 covers not only “molesting, attacking, striking, stalking, threatening, sexually assaulting, [and] battering,” but also “harassing, telephoning, … contacting, either directly or indirectly, by mail or otherwise, coming within a specified distance of, [and] disturbing the peace of the other party ….” (§ 6320, subd. (a).)
“Renewal of a DVRO is authorized by Family Code section 6345, subdivision (a), which permits a court to extend the term of an order ‘without a showing of further abuse since the issuance of the original order.’ The renewal may be ‘for five or more years, or permanently, at the discretion of the court.’ ” (G.G. v. G.S. (2024) 102 Cal.App.5th 413, 421, 321 Cal.Rptr.3d 519 (G.G.), quoting § 6345, subd. (a).)
Renewal of a DVRO, is a “question is whether a reasonable person, in the petitioner’s circumstances, would fear repetition of the abuse if the order expired.” (G.G., supra, 102 Cal.App.5th at p. 421, 321 Cal.Rptr.3d 519; Michael M. v. Robin J. (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 170, 179, 309 Cal.Rptr.3d 13 (Michael M.) [“The legal standard for renewal of a DVRO is whether the protected party entertains a reasonable apprehension of future abuse.”].) Petitioners need only to demonstrate “it is more probable than not there is a sufficient risk of future abuse to find the protected party’s apprehension genuine and reasonable.’ ” (Michael M., at p. 179,, 309 Cal.Rptr.3d 13.)
Factors considered in assessing whether a victim has a “reasonable apprehension” of future abuse
The trial court ordinarily should consider the evidence and findings on which the initial DVRO was based. ‘[T]he underlying findings and facts supporting that order often will be enough in themselves to provide the necessary proof to satisfy that test.’ ”
Second, courts consider “ ‘any significant changes in the circumstances surrounding the events justifying the initial protective order.
Finally, courts evaluate the seriousness and degree of risk, such as whether it involves potential physical abuse, and the burdens the protective order imposes on the restrained person, such as interference with job opportunities. But if the feared abuse is physical violence because the physical security of the protected party trumps all … burdens.
Request to Renew the DVRO
The factors all support granting Navarro’s request to renew the DVRO. The trial court abused its discretion in concluding Navarro did not establish a reasonable apprehension of future abuse.
The facts surrounding the 2018 incident are egregious and, combined with Cervera’s intentional violations of the DVRO, establish the reasonableness of Navarro’s ongoing fear of future abuse. The record does not contain evidence of changed circumstances such that “the restrained and protected parties [have] moved on with their lives so far that the opportunity and likelihood of future abuse has diminished to the degree they no longer support a renewal of the order.” (Ritchie, supra, 115 Cal.App.4th at p. 1291, 10 Cal.Rptr.3d 387.) During the pendency of the DVRO Cervera moved to Southern California—where Navarro lives—and was not in a relationship at the time of the renewed DVRO hearing.
Despite these facts, the court only warned Cervera of the consequences of future violations. But the trial court’s “warning” to Cervera “suggest[s] that the trial court believed there was a need to admonish [Cervera] from the bench that [s]he must continue to stay away and have no contact with [Navarro], but without giving [Navarro] the legal protection of a restraining order.” The trial court’s comments thus serve to further bolster our conclusion that [Navarro] had demonstrated a reasonable apprehension of future abuse.
It was an abuse of discretion to deny renewal of the DVRO. The trial court was required to broadly construe the DVPA when assessing the reasonableness of Navarro’s fear. Instead, by giving greater weight to Cervera’s unsubstantiated justifications for her abuse and DVRO violations rather than considering the impact of those actions on Navarro’s sense of safety, the court abused its discretion.
Disposition
The order denying Navarro’s request for a renewal of DVRO is reversed and remanded with instructions to grant the renewal request. On remand, the court is instructed to decide whether the DVRO should be renewed for five years or more, or permanently.
The information provided on this website does not, and is not intended to, constitute legal advice; instead, all information, content, and materials available on this site are for general informational purposes only. Information on this website may not constitute the most up-to-date legal or other information.