## Facts

- Keith McCord and Celeste Smith were former romantic partners and domestic partners.
- After their relationship deteriorated in 2018, both sought domestic violence restraining orders (DVROs) under the Domestic Violence Prevention Act (DVPA), and McCord also sought contempt sanctions for alleged violations of prior orders.
- McCord alleged Smith tried to back her car into him and threatened him in September 2018; Smith denied the allegations, and no criminal charges were filed.
- Evidence credited by the trial court showed McCord repeatedly appeared at Smith’s home and workplace uninvited and persistently contacted her by texts, calls, and emails after she ended the relationship.
- Smith testified that on November 2, 2018, McCord restrained her on a bed and covered her mouth when she attempted to end the relationship; she then fled outside.
- The trial court found McCord engaged in a pattern of stalking, harassment, and controlling behavior that disturbed Smith’s peace, including an incident where McCord sent Smith a photograph of her nursing license in a manner the court viewed as intimidating.
- The trial court issued a DVRO protecting Smith, denied McCord’s DVRO request, and dismissed McCord’s contempt request with prejudice.

## Issues

1. Whether substantial evidence supported issuing a DVRO in favor of Smith based on “abuse” under the DVPA, including disturbing the peace through coercive and controlling conduct.
2. Whether the trial court erred in denying McCord’s competing DVRO request against Smith.
3. Whether the trial court’s dismissal with prejudice of McCord’s contempt proceeding was appealable.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed issuance of the DVRO for Smith, holding substantial evidence supported the trial court’s findings of DVPA “abuse” under the totality of the circumstances.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed denial of McCord’s DVRO request, citing lack of evidentiary support and the absence of developed appellate argument.
- The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal as to the contempt ruling, holding contempt orders are final and not appealable.

## Legal Principles

- Under the DVPA, “abuse” includes conduct that disturbs the other party’s peace and is not limited to physical violence; coercive and controlling behavior may qualify.
- Courts must evaluate DVRO requests under the totality of the circumstances, considering whether a course of conduct (including repeated unwanted contact, harassment, stalking, and implied threats) collectively disturbs the protected party’s mental or emotional calm.
- On appeal, factual findings supporting issuance of a DVRO are reviewed for substantial evidence; appellate courts view the record favorably to the order and do not reweigh credibility.
- A DVRO denial will be affirmed where the record does not support issuance and the appellant fails to present specific, reasoned argument.
- Orders or judgments in contempt matters are final and conclusive and cannot be reviewed by direct appeal.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeal upheld a DVRO based on a pattern of coercive control and repeated unwanted contact that disturbed the protected party’s peace when viewed in context, affirmed denial of the opposing DVRO request for lack of support, and dismissed the contempt challenge because contempt rulings are not appealable.


McCord v. Smith, 51 Cal. App. 5th 358 (Cal. Ct. App. 2020)