NEW DV TRO 2020 Published Case Leaves 4 letter Word Intact+Implies Past Conduct Does Count

This published case involves Domestic Violence Temporary Restraining Orders in Superior Courts--this is not the same as a Criminal protective order under the CA Penal Code.

Criminal protective orders are serious charges which can easily place you in jail, and create bad long lasting consequences.

This is the link to the appealed case for DV TRO not being continued, or  heard:

https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/2020/b296295.html


This is a fairly unusual case because it almost certainly is talking about same sex couple, but no names as can be seen, are shown in this published case.

The decision for this case being published is mainly based on what appears to be several things:



One, just because an act or action took place several months ago, that alone does not decimate its inherent character [in attorney's opinion] such that it would not count based simply on the time of the alleged event, and ostensibly,


Two- There WAS a medical reason also given by the Petitioner;

Three, the court left in [what would be called] patently obscene language that was allegedly used by the Respondent, in the written opinion.

This can only mean [to attorney herein]..that the court is attempting to show the overall character of the person using the profanity, for lack of a better explanation, because seldom if ever do we see judges quote the profanity in published cases....[it may appear in criminal cases, but clearly this was not a criminal case for a protective order]

 AND because this is a domestic violence case, with plausible reasons for the continuance being asked for in the court below, due to medical issues among others, it stands to reason that the appeals court does not want DOMESTIC VIOLENCE cases eliminated inappropriately.

(1) Cases should NOT BE TOSSED OUT simply because of the time that an incident took place necessarily, and--

(2) When reasons are given which appear to be valid or somewhat valid, the court should not be tossing out DV cases [for the reasons the court named]

 Those reasons cited by the Superior court below--- were apparently not good enough- - based upon the DV law, and this case, while a short one in briefing, was published for several reasons, and those reasons are based upon the DV laws as cited in the published case.