## Facts

- F.M. petitioned to dissolve her marriage to M.M., but the couple continued living together with their six children.
- About a year after filing for dissolution, F.M. sought a domestic-violence restraining order (DVRO) against M.M.
- F.M. alleged M.M. repeatedly called her vulgar names in front of the children, threatened to kill her, sometimes struck her, took her phone, and demanded she leave the home.
- F.M. also alleged M.M. moved their eldest daughter to live with another woman without F.M.’s permission.
- F.M. requested orders requiring M.M. to move out, to refrain from abuse, and to refrain from traveling with the children.
- The trial court issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) barring M.M. from abusing F.M. and requiring him to stay five yards away, but denied the requested move-out and other relief pending a hearing.
- At the first hearing, the court adopted a counselor’s recommendation granting F.M. sole custody of the children and viewed the parties’ conflict as tied to continued cohabitation.
- The court ordered F.M. (not M.M.) to move out of the family home before a continued hearing.
- Before the next hearing date, M.M. was arrested after an incident in which F.M. alleged M.M. pushed her when she returned to the home to retrieve belongings.
- At the second hearing, M.M. admitted the arrest but denied pushing F.M. and stated no criminal charges had been filed; F.M. said she intended to press charges.
- The court continued the matter again to allow F.M. time to pursue criminal charges.
- Before the final hearing, F.M. again requested a move-out order for M.M., stating she and the children were living out of her car, and she alleged M.M. threatened to kill her for withdrawing money from a joint account.
- At the final hearing, the trial court declined to issue a DVRO, reasoning that a DVRO could be based only on events that occurred before the DVRO request and that F.M.’s evidence of pre-request domestic violence was uncorroborated.

## Issues

1. Did the trial court apply an incorrect legal standard by refusing to consider incidents of alleged abuse occurring after F.M. filed her DVRO request but before the hearing?
2. Did the trial court err by effectively treating corroboration as a requirement for F.M.’s testimony about domestic violence occurring before the DVRO request?

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal reversed the order denying the DVRO.
- The court held the trial court erred by limiting its DVRO analysis to events predating the application and by disregarding later alleged abuse offered at the hearing.
- The court ruled the trial court also erred to the extent it treated lack of corroboration as a categorical bar to relief, rather than a credibility consideration.
- The matter was remanded for further proceedings under the proper legal standards.

## Legal Principles

- In deciding whether to issue a DVRO under the Domestic Violence Prevention Act, the court must determine whether abuse occurred and whether an order is necessary to prevent future abuse.
- The DVRO hearing is not restricted to evidence of events occurring only before the application; the court may consider conduct occurring after the request and before the hearing as part of the overall record bearing on risk of future abuse.
- A party’s testimony can be sufficient to support a DVRO; corroborating evidence is not a legal prerequisite, though the court may weigh corroboration (or the absence of it) when assessing credibility.
- A denial of a DVRO based on an erroneous view of the permissible evidence or required proof is reversible, because it prevents the trial court from exercising informed discretion.

## Conclusion

In re Marriage of F.M. and M.M. holds that a trial court considering a DVRO must evaluate relevant evidence of abuse through the time of the hearing and may not refuse relief simply because key testimony lacks independent corroboration; because the trial court excluded post-filing events and treated corroboration as necessary, the Court of Appeal reversed the DVRO denial and remanded for reconsideration under the correct standard.


In re Marriage of F.M. and M.M., 65 Cal. App. 5th 106 (2021)