Home      Login

Abstract: 

Our case summaries this issue review two important decisions from California in which the California Court of Appeals interpreted the definition of “abuse” broadly. In Vinson v. Kinsey, the appellate court reversed a trial court’s denial of a restraining order that had cited “issues of credibility” because the victim had delayed filing her request and had resumed contact with her abuser, which the trial court said suggested that she was “not particularly concerned” about her partner’s threats of violence. Here, we examine the Court of Appeals rejection of the trial court’s reasoning. In a second California case, Hatley v. Southard, the state Court of Appeals reversed another trial court’s denial of DVRO, ruling that court must reach beyond violence and threats of violence and that attempts to control, regulate, and monitor a spouse’s finances, economic resources, movements, and access to communications are abuse—that is, coercive control—and must be considered in deciding whether a DVRO should be granted. Finally, we analyze a recent New Mexico ruling in which an order of protection against a sexual abuse perpetrator was affirmed without “Evidence of Imminent Danger”; and an Indiana ruling that a challenged protective order was properly issued based on respondent’s credible threat.

Keywords: Domestic Violence Prevention Act (DVPA); Domestic Violence Restraining Order (DVRO); New Mexico’s Family Violence Prevention Act (FVPA); Indiana Civil Protection Order Act

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