## Facts

- Former spouses shared joint legal and physical custody of two teenage children after dissolution.
- During post-dissolution custody litigation, the husband accessed an email account used by the wife and obtained emails with third parties, including attorney-client communications.
- The husband attached copies of the emails to filings in the custody case, asserting the account was jointly used to communicate about the children.
- The wife alleged the account was hers, that the husband accessed it without authorization, and that he used the information to obtain subpoenas and monitor her schedule and whereabouts.
- The wife sought protection under the Domestic Violence Prevention Act (DVPA), obtained an ex parte temporary restraining order, and then requested a long-term protective order.

## Issues

1. Whether the wife’s sworn allegations were facially sufficient to allege “abuse” under the DVPA, requiring a hearing on the merits rather than dismissal as legally insufficient.
2. Whether unauthorized access to a spouse’s email, including review and use of confidential communications, can qualify as “disturbing the peace of the other party” within the DVPA’s definition of “abuse.”

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal reversed the order dismissing the DVPA request and remanded for a hearing on the merits.
- The court held the wife’s allegations, taken as true for threshold sufficiency, stated “abuse” under the DVPA, particularly through “disturbing the peace.”
- The court noted DVPA matters are entitled to prompt handling and that the trial court’s error was dismissing for legal insufficiency, not managing live testimony.

## Legal Principles

- DVPA “abuse” is not limited to physical injury; it includes conduct that “has been or could be enjoined” under Family Code § 6320.
- “Disturbing the peace of the other party” includes conduct that destroys the other party’s mental or emotional calm.
- Allegations of unauthorized electronic intrusion into private communications and use of that information to monitor, pressure, or gain advantage in family-law litigation may constitute DVPA abuse if they plausibly disturb the victim’s peace.
- At the facial-sufficiency stage, the court does not decide disputed facts; if the declarations, if proved, could establish DVPA abuse, the applicant is entitled to a merits hearing.

## Conclusion

The appellate court required a merits hearing because allegations that a former spouse secretly accessed private email—including attorney-client communications—and used the information to monitor and litigate against the applicant could constitute DVPA “abuse” by “disturbing the peace,” even without physical violence.


In re Marriage of Nadkarni, 173 Cal. App. 4th 1483, 93 Cal. Rptr. 3d 723 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009)