## Facts

- K.L. and R.H. were former intimate partners and parents of one child, Z.L.; R.H. also had an older child, H.H.
- After their relationship ended, both parties sought domestic violence restraining orders (DVROs) under the Domestic Violence Prevention Act (DVPA).
- Evidence showed repeated serious abuse by K.L. against R.H., including physical assaults (at times involving a firearm), breaking into a locked room to attack her, and other violence; some incidents resulted in injuries to children.
- After temporary orders issued, K.L. assaulted R.H. during a custody exchange outside a police station.
- Evidence also showed misconduct by R.H., including a verbal threat to kill K.L. at an exchange and hostile communications related to coparenting logistics.
- The trial court issued mutual DVROs, found each party a “primary aggressor” and neither acting in self-defense, and ordered joint legal and physical custody of Z.L.
- R.H. appealed the mutual DVROs and the custody orders; during the appeal, dependency proceedings began involving Z.L., temporarily placing custody jurisdiction in juvenile court.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court erred in issuing mutual DVROs without making the detailed findings required by Family Code § 6305, including analysis of the Penal Code § 836(c)(3) “primary aggressor” factors.
2. Whether the trial court erred in making joint custody orders without applying Family Code § 3044’s rebuttable presumption against awarding custody to a domestic violence perpetrator.

## Decision

- The court affirmed the DVRO protecting R.H. and H.H. from K.L.
- The court reversed the portion of the orders that imposed mutual restraints against R.H., holding the trial court did not comply with Family Code § 6305’s requirements for mutual DVROs.
- The court reversed the custody orders and directed that, once the family court regains jurisdiction, any renewed custody litigation must apply Family Code § 3044 and its statutory factors.

## Legal Principles

- Mutual DVPA restraining orders are permitted only if the court makes detailed findings that both parties acted as primary aggressors and neither acted primarily in self-defense. (Fam. Code § 6305.)
- In determining the “primary aggressor” for purposes of mutual orders, the court must consider the factors identified in Penal Code § 836(c)(3), aimed at identifying the dominant aggressor and protecting victims.
- Domestic violence by a parent within the prior five years triggers a rebuttable presumption that awarding that parent sole or joint legal or physical custody is detrimental to the child’s best interest; the court must apply the presumption and evaluate the statutory rebuttal factors before awarding custody. (Fam. Code § 3044.)
- Custody orders that fail to account for the § 3044 presumption when domestic violence is shown are reversible error.

## Conclusion

The court held that mutual DVROs cannot issue without the statutorily required detailed primary-aggressor findings and reversed the mutual restraints against R.H.; it also reversed joint custody orders because the trial court failed to apply the mandatory § 3044 presumption and factors when domestic violence evidence showed K.L. as the dominant aggressor.


K.L. v. R.H., 70 Cal. App. 5th 965 (Cal. Ct. App. 2021)