Home      Login

Abstract: 

Our case summaries this issue review important decisions involving restraining orders. In a California case (In re A.P., 103 Cal. App. 5th 1137, the Cal. Ct. App. Ruled that physical separation of parties did not justify a trial court’s denial of request for restraining order, and reversed and remanded the case for new hearing. Also in California, in Navarro v. Cervera, No. A169830, Cal. Ct. App. Ruled that the state’s “Domestic Violence Prevention Act” authorizes extension of restraining orders when fear of future harm is reasonable. Other cases include S.S. v. J.S., 230 Conn.App. 655 (Conn. Ct. App. 2025); Aguilar v. Valdez-Mendoza, No. S-24-286 (Neb. 2025); E.G. v. M.L., 105 Cal.App.5th 688 (Cal. Ct. App. 2024); Mitchell v. Ramlow, No. 50287-2022 (Idaho 2024); Davis v. Romanyshyn, No. 20240167 (N.D. 2025).

Keywords: Physical Separation of Parties; Civil Protection Orders; California’s “Domestic Violence Prevention Act”; Coercive Control; Litigation Abuse; Evidentiary Hearings

Affiliations:  1: Contributing Editor; 2: Associate Editor.