## Facts

- G.G. and G.S. were former romantic partners and parents of two minor children.
- During the relationship, G.S. used intimidation and control to manage G.G.’s behavior, including following her through the home, cornering her, taking her phone, and otherwise bullying her when she did not comply with his wishes.
- G.S. installed a listening device in the home; after moving out, he placed another device and monitored conversations involving the children.
- Police responded multiple times to incidents in which G.S. manhandled G.G. in public and at home.
- After the breakup, G.S. repeatedly questioned whether G.G. was dating, confronted her with dating-site photos, and obtained photos from her phone by using her login credentials.
- Concerned that G.S. was stalking her, G.G. installed exterior video cameras at her home. The cameras captured more than 70 nighttime instances of G.S. appearing at or in front of her home.
- G.G. sought and obtained a domestic violence restraining order (DVRO). The trial court granted the DVRO based on findings that G.S. had stalked G.G., and it also issued custody and visitation orders concerning the children.
- The custody orders required that G.S. communicate with G.G. only through the “Talking Parents” application.
- About two weeks before the DVRO’s two-year term expired, G.G. requested renewal and asked that the DVRO be made permanent. She relied on the conduct supporting the original DVRO and cited several alleged post-order incidents, including contacts outside the Talking Parents app, driving past her home, and a sighting of G.S. in her local grocery store by her uncle.
- G.S. denied any post-DVRO stalking. The trial court found no evidence that G.S. intentionally engaged in stalking behavior after issuance of the DVRO and concluded that G.G.’s ongoing fear, though genuine, was not objectively reasonable. It denied renewal.
- G.G. appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court applied the correct legal standard under Family Code section 6345(a) when it denied renewal of a DVRO by treating the absence of intentional post-order stalking or violations as dispositive of the reasonableness of the protected party’s fear.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal reversed the order denying renewal and remanded for reconsideration under the proper standard.
- The trial court’s narrow focus on the lack of intentional post-DVRO stalking or violations showed a mistaken view of the law governing renewal and therefore prevented a proper exercise of discretion.
- On remand, the trial court must evaluate whether, considering the original basis for the DVRO and any post-order changes in circumstances, a reasonable person in G.G.’s circumstances would fear future abuse if the DVRO were allowed to expire.

## Legal Principles

- A DVRO may be renewed under Family Code section 6345(a) if the protected party shows a reasonable apprehension of future abuse; the central question is whether a reasonable person in the petitioner’s circumstances would fear repetition of the abuse if the order expired. (Ritchie v. Konrad.)
- The renewal inquiry is not limited to whether the restrained party committed new acts of abuse or violated the order after issuance; compliance with the order does not, by itself, bar renewal.
- In deciding renewal, courts must consider the factual predicate for the original DVRO (the evidence and findings supporting it) and any significant change in circumstances after the order was issued, along with any other facts bearing on future risk.
- Orders granting or denying renewal are generally reviewed for abuse of discretion, but whether the trial court used the correct legal standard is a question of law reviewed de novo; a ruling influenced by legal error is not a valid exercise of discretion.
- The Domestic Violence Prevention Act is to be construed broadly to carry out its protective purpose, including preventing recurrence of abuse.

## Conclusion

G.G. v. G.S. holds that a trial court may not deny renewal of a DVRO on the ground that there is no proof of intentional post-order stalking or violations; the court must instead decide, in light of the original stalking findings and subsequent circumstances, whether a reasonable person in the protected party’s circumstances would reasonably fear future abuse if the restraining order expires.


G.G. v. G.S., 102 Cal. App. 5th 413, 321 Cal Rptr. 3d 519 (2024)