© 2016 DennisTemkoLaw.Proudly created with Wix.com

Areas I serve include: Los Angeles, San Diego, Santa Clara, San Francisco, Sacramento, Alameda, Orange, Ventura, Riverside, Monterey, Contra Costa, San Mateo, Santa Barbara , San Jose, Anaheim, Irvine, Huntington Beach, Glendale, Santa Rosa, Corona, Pasadena, Carlsbad, Burbank, Santa Monica, Newport Beach, Kern County

Marriage of Fregoso and Hernandez Summary

 

Opinion published November 16, 2016

 

Factual Background

 

Marriage of Fregoso and Hernandez concerned a domestic violence restraining order (DVRO).  Husband sought a dissolution.  In response, Wife filed a request for a DVRO.  The basis, Husband grabbed, pushed, and held Wife’s head to where she could not breathe.  On one occasion Husband repeatedly hit the parties’ daughter with a belt.  In his response, Husband denied Wife’s allegations.  Instead, Wife was the aggressor.  She threw boiling water at him.  Husband never hit the parties’ daughter. The court issued a temporary restraining order (TRO)

 

At the hearing on Wife’s request, Wife collaborated her declaration testimony.  However, while on cross-examination, Wife conceded her and husband had sex since the court issued the TRO.  She explained this was a pattern.  Husband provided her gifts.  Then they often reconciled and had sex.  Husband instead testified Wife hit and harassed him on many occasions and sought the DVRO to retaliate for the dissolution. 

 

Trial Court’s Order

 

After hearing the parties’ testimony the court found good cause to grant the request for a permanent restraining order.  Husband appealed

 

Decision on Appeal

 

First in its analysis, the court of appeal summarized the domestic violence prevention act’s general background.  Second, it resolved to review the trial court’s order under a hybrid abuse of discretion and substantial evidence test.  Husband’s argument Wife’s lack of fearfulness (consensual sex) justified reversal was meritless.  The conclusions he drew from his own testimony were certainly not unreasonable.  However, “[w]hen two or more inferences can reasonably be deduced from the facts, the reviewing court has no authority to substitute its decision for that of the trial court.”  The court of appeal must credit Wife’s testimony on appeal and it alone was substantial enough to order a DVRO.  The court affirmed.

Viewing the presentations, articles, other content, or contacting me/you through my web site does not establish an attorney client relationship. I will not file a notice of appeal nor calculate the time in which a notice of appeal must be filed by until I have received a signed retainer agreement.  Warning, the time from which to file a notice of appeal is statutory. The time in which you have to appeal may pass between when you first contact me and when an attorney client relationship is formed upon when I receive a signed retainer agreement .  Until a retainer agreement is signed and received by me, it is YOUR responsibility to insure your appeal is filed within the statutory period.  The articles on this website are not legal advice and should not be used in lieu of an attorney.  The accuracy of articles and information on this site cannot be relied upon.