1. 1
Domestic Violence: What Everyone New to Bench Should Know
1) Emergency Protective Order
3) DV­100: Request for Domestic Violence Restraining Order
a. See DV­100 guideline & checklist // Page 20
8) DV­109: Notice of Court Hearing
11) DV­110: Temporary Restraining Order
19) Consanguinity: Degrees of relationships
a. Parent (mother/father) ­­­­­­> 1st Degree
b. Son/Daughter­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­> 1st Degree
c. Brother/Sister ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­> 2nd Degree
d. Grandparent(s)­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­> 2nd Degree
e. Grandchild­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­> 2nd Degree
f. See table // Page 18
27) Penal Code 1203.097: Terms of probation outlined for a crime in which the victim is a
person defined in Section 6211 of the Family Code
34) Rule 4.700. of California Rules of Court: Firearm relinquishment procedures for criminal
protective orders
a. Rule applies under Penal Code section 136.2 during a criminal case or as a
condition of probation under Penal Code section 1203.097 (a)(2) against a
defendant charged with a crime of DV as defined in Penal Code section 13700.
b. Purpose is to assist courts issuing CPO in determining if a defendant possesses
any firearms & whether the defendant has complied with the court's order to
relinquish or sell the firearms under Code of Civil Procedure section 527.9.
c. Court must determine if there is good cause to believe that the defendant has a
firearm in his/her immediate possession and if is the case, court must set a
review hearing to ascertain whether defendant has complied with Code of Civil
Procedure section 527.9.
d. If court issued a CPO & finds the defendant has a firearm in possession, court
must consider whether bail or setting defendant on his/her own recognizance is
appropriate. If defendant does not arrive at hearing & court orders that bail be
revoked, a bench warrant will be issued.
e. The burden of proof is on the prosecution
36) Restraining order cheat sheet
a. Emergency Protective Restraining Order
b. Domestic Violence Protective Order
c. Civil Harassment
d. Workplace Violence
e. Elder Abuse
38) Domestic Violence Appellate Cases
a. People v. Stone​: Aggregate prison term of four years and restraining order issued
for Monti Stone after assaulting his roommate & other acquaintance. However,

2. 2
the restraining order was issued after jury instructions but before the jury voted to
convict. The restraining order in this case was unauthorized because it lasted
beyond the pendency of the trial and was intended to benefit people, neither of
whom were victims or witnesses in any ongoing criminal action when the order
was made.
b. People v. Ayers​: Victim was struck & attacked by her boyfriend, Allen Ayers. She
then called hotline operator by the Alliance Against Family Violence (AAFV). The
victim’s statements were properly recorded by employees following standard
procedure, however, this does not mean that the victim's statements themselves
were trustworthy. Therefore, there was a double layer of hearsay; from the
victim’s statements & the employee’s recordation.
c. People v. Quitiquit​: Michael Quitiquit & his wife were separated. On March 6,
2002, an argument ensued between the couple, and a week later the wife went to
the doctor with complaints of numbness: she reported that she had no prior
history of trauma. Villanueva reported on April 24, while hospitalized, that Michael
had twisted her neck during that argument on March 6. Quitiquit was convicted of
voluntary manslaughter, however, it was reversed because the victim’s statement
would only be admissible in court if it was made “at or near” the time of the injury.
Here, the wife had the opportunity to tell the doctor immediately what happened
but waited almost two months after the incident to tell her doctor, and denied it at
first. Thus, the “at or near” time of the event requirement was not satisfied.
d. Ritchie v. Konrad​: Couple dated for four years until Ritchie broke off their
engagement. She obtained a three year protective order against Konrad. Three
years later they both remarried other people & Ritchie moved to Nevada. She
sought to have the protection order extended permanently, and a trial court
granted the extension but also removed Konrad’s restriction from owning
firearms. This decision was reversed & remanded because the protection order
should not be automatically extended if there is opposition to the extension & no
reasonable fear of future abuse.
e. Monterroso v. Moran​: Monterroso filed an application for a temporary restraining
order against her husband, Moran, when he became verbally & physically
abusive towards her and her daughter. Monterroso spoke little english and had
no council to represent her in court. Moran’s counsel indicated that the parties
agreed to a mutual restraining order. The court acted in excess of jurisdiction
when it failed to make detailed findings before entering mutual restraining order
between husband and wife. As a result of the lack of court interpreter and the
lack of detailed findings, the decision was reversed.
f. Marriage of Nadkarni & Nadkarni​: Darshana received a temporary restraining
order against her former husband, Datta, after he sifted through her personal &
private email account. The trial court dismissed Darshana’s application to extend
the restraining order, finding that the alleged conduct did not constitute abuse
under the Domestic Violence Protective Act. Datta accessed, read, and publicly
disclosed the content of Darshana’s confidential emails, which caused the

3. 3
destruction of her emotional calm, which sufficiently shows abuse within the
meaning of DVPA.
g. Keith R. v. Superior Court​: Keith filed for divorce from wife, H.R. They had one
child, B.R.A. Mother issued a domestic violence order against Keith in 2008, and
sole custody was awarded to mother while Keith was required to complete a
52­week batterer’s program, which is required to show a “significant change of
circumstances” after the program in order to prove that an alternate custody
award would serve the child’s best interest. However, the court erred by applying
the “changed circumstance” standard in this custody case involving domestic
violence finding. In domestic violence cases, the defendant is able to claim
custody by having a preponderance of evidence over the finding of “detrimental
to the best interest of the child.” The domestic violence finding only changed the
burden of persuasion for the best interest test, not eliminate it. Thus, father was
entitled to present rebuttal evidence as to the best interest of his child, not
changed circumstances.
h. Loeffler v. Medina​: Loeffler filed a restraining order against ex­boyfriend, Medina.
The restraining order was extended indefinitely. Medina filed an application to
terminate the permanent restraining order, claiming that it impacted his
employment options, however, an impact on future jobs does not justify lifting an
order. A restraining order is upheld where circumstances have not sufficiently
changed, thus, the court denied Medina’s application.
57) Danger Assessment
59) Bench Guide for Recognizing Dangerousness in Domestic Violence Cases
60) ​Custody Intervention Methods​: Normal Conflict, High Conflict, Domestic Violence
61) Child Custody: Specialized Assessment Needs in Domestic Violence Cases