C.Chan=Winning Results! AFFORDABLE! 4.7/5 Ratings by Clients Friendly+Affordable!CHICO NEW PH.#530.497-0777

Sunday, August 19, 2018

Attorney DV TRO Success in Multiple Cases

Not so typical DV TRO cases are not easy to accomplish, mostly because people don't understand
how they can operate. A DV TRO is much more complicated that it appears, despite people filing them inappropriately.

In our cases, we specifically explore opportunities for a DV TRO case when facts have already taken place, and we cannot get rid of what has already happened, BUT we still need to do something to preserve the client's rights. This may sound obvious/easy to do, but it is not.

The law re DV TROs (domestic violence temporary restraining orders) was created basically because mostly women were forced to flee their own homes due to abuse of some type. [Men can be victims as well but it is usually mostly women..]  Since abuse can mean a lot of things, women who have left their own homes for various reasons often are not sure what to do or where they can go. However, under the CA Penal Code, domestic violence is defined as intentionally or recklessly causing or attempting to cause bodily injury, or placing another person in reasonable apprehension of imminent serious bodily injury to himself or herself, or to another.

------>  The Domestic Violence Prevention Act (Family Code Section 6200 et seq)-- which we call the DV TRO for short--- is much different than the definition under the CA Penal Code. In fact, the DV TRO specifically mentions sections of the CA Family Code (such as FC6320, 6203(a), FC6203(b).

The DV TRO data, Domestic Violence Prevention Act, (FC Section 6200 et seq)-- is often used by pro se litigants, sometimes inappropriately. Abuse is NOT limited to actual infliction of physical injury or assault. We have seen the DV TRO used inappropriately in some cases, and in others, the clients have never filed a DV TRO because they were too afraid.

Different Approach Methods for Various Cases in DV TRO by Attorney

A few examples..........
Female was formerly abused by the ex boyfriend while living together in another state.  She required medical attention and charges were filed against the ex.  She moved to CA with her two dogs, the ex attempted to continue harassing her, by filing a civil lawsuit re the dogs. [Attorney does animal law and has wide history of examining animal law cases both state and federal..]

Victim has PTSD from the former domestic violence in the other state; the continued following by the ex, to sue her in state of CA was a pattern of harassment, among other things...We filed a DV TRO for her, it was granted, and the ex did not get any of the dogs. Further, the ex's lawsuit was tossed after victim was advised to file in Federal Court and obtained a stay, and that dog case was then dead in the water. This was not in Butte County, but in Northern CA about 55 miles from Butte.

Female was formerly abused physically by the ex, the ex was not charged, but was arrested. She was too afraid to file a DV TRO.

After female left the ex, a prior situation involving potential molest by a family member v another family member arose....the victim family member was living with the ex. We filed the DV TRO and included the victim family member, to prohibit the ex from getting the victim family member back into his home.
This resulted in a CSD (child services) investigation.which was decided by the court at what is known as VIP, which is not mediation, but a process usually used for agreements in custody. Since judge sent the case there, knowing there was a DV TRO filed, the DV TRO was left in place and continued to at least the end of the investigation.  It is a dicey decision to contact CSD if you do not have certain evidence/facts/witnesses, and normally an attorney should be consulted first, unless situation is outright obvious or evidence will be destroyed, or unless there is an obvious 911 situation. Had this not been done, as stated above, it would have created many loopholes in the domestic divorce case. At least this way the minor child did not have to go to CPS nor back to the ex's home.

Female/minor child arrived in CA on a one way ticket from another state, where female had been the subject of domestic violence by the ex and his family. We filed a DV TRO against the out of state ex, because we realized that if there was nothing to stop him, he would come to CA and take the child.

Under cases which involve various legal filings in two states, the UCCJEA and the states' UCCJEA apply. Usually in those cases, the judges will confer to determine the jurisdiction for the case. Each side may believe their "state" should be used for the case. These scenarios can be a little involved, and it is not the attorneys that ultimately decide the jurisdiction. However, we are hoping in our case that the out of state judge will urge the CA judge to keep our case here. Reason being is that when one party sends the other party to go away with a one way ticket, then ends up filing a divorce and
demands return of the child to the other state, while the female in CA has already been granted a one year DV TRO--- why should the judge in the 2nd state want the female to go back to the abuser in the 2nd state when there is a new DV TRO in the first state (CA)?  We will see what happens in several weeks. The ex did file a "response" to the DV TRO in CA but he did not object otherwise on the record when the one year DV TRO was granted. Plausibly, the one year grant included the temporary custody of the minor child as requested, [even if Judge couldn't make a custody order, since the home state was the other state, not CA.] We assume that returning the child would have to be done by the ex in the other state; so far, Judge in the other state, did not order that the Mother or child be returned to the original state (which is not CA.)

We get various unusual cases that are candidates for DV TRO filing. We expect to handle two more DV TRO cases shortly. Most attorneys breeze over this because they limit the scenarios to certain aspects. In our background of meeting people, we have found that the DV TRO definitely has limits but when abuse is present, and other evidence is there, the DV TRO may be appropriate.

Contact Chico attorney C. Chan today 530.359,8810 if you believe you have a DV TRO case. We would be happy to talk with you about the case. Most affordable attorney rates!