© 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

Phillips v. Campbell Summary

Opinion published August 23, 2016

 

Factual background

 

Phillips v. Campbell involved a domestic violence restraining order. A Tennessee court issued a stay away order protecting Amy against James.  Two years later, Amy applied for a DVRO in California.  In her application, Amy recounted James wanted to “move[ ] forward the relationship.”  Amy expressed her disinterest.  Thereafter, James harassed Amy on multiple occasions. 

 

Trial Court’s Order

 

The trial court found that “there was a relationship [between the parties] that qualifies as a dating relationship and that the communications and interaction from [James] to [Amy] qualifies for a domestic violence restraining order protecting [Amy].”

Decision on Appeal

 

On appeal, James argued his relationship with Amy did not rise to the level of “having or [have] had a dating . . .relationship” as defined by Family Code section 6211. Rather, the relationship was one of “best friends” and platonic.  The Court of Appeal responded Family Code section 6210 defined a dating relationship as “frequent, intimate associations primarily characterized by the expectation of affection or sexual involvement independent of financial considerations.”  The code was enacted to counter a former case that held only sexual relationships could result in a protective order. 

 

The Court of Appeal found the trial court’s finding the parties relationship fell within the code’s definition was supported by substantial evidence.  The evidence, Amy declared the parties ate out together and James stayed at her house.  There were messages between the parties which evidenced physical affection.  Moreover, after Amy rebuffed James’ advances, James sent her messages which clearly evidenced he thought their relationship was much more than a friendship.  While James drew different inferences than the trial court, the appellate court was required to give deference to the trial court’s findings.   

Contact Me

FOR A CONSULTATION

 

 

(858) 274 3538

 

Dennis Temko, Esq.

Law Office of Stephen Temko
750 "B" Street Suite 2100
San Diego CA, 92101

 

 

EMAIL

Dennis.Temko@Yahoo.com OR

Email me through this site by clicking HERE

      

Dennis Temko was recognized as a “Rising Star” in 2017 by Super Lawyers, a rating service of outstanding lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement.

  • Wix Facebook page
  • LinkedIn Social Icon
  • Wix Google+ page