Priscila N. v. Leonardo G.

Filed 12/1/17 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

PRISCILA N., B279584

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. VD079703) v.

LEONARDO G.,

Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Charles Q. Clay III, Judge. Reversed and remanded. Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, Joanna S. McCallum; Harriet Buhai Center for Family Law, Elizabeth Erickson, Holly Leonard; Erin C. Smith, Jennifer Dorfman Wagner, Shuray Ghorishi, and Anya Emerson, for Plaintiff and Appellant. Pepper Hamilton, Pamela S. Palmer, Brian M. Nichilo, and Courtney A. Munnings for California Women’s Law Center as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiff and Appellant. No appearance for Defendant and Respondent.

In this case, we hold the family court has jurisdiction under Family Code section 6345, subdivision (a) to renew domestic violence restraining orders (DVROs) initially granted by the juvenile court, the same conclusion reached by Division Eight of this district in Garcia v. Escobar (Nov. 15, 2017, B279530) ___ Cal.App.4th ___ [2017 Cal.App. Lexis 1005].) In sum, we conclude that the legislative history of the Family Code and the Welfare and Institutions Code indicates the Legislature intended juvenile and family courts to work together to protect victims of domestic violence. In order to effectuate this intent, we construe both statutes broadly, avoiding a formalistic reading that would require domestic violence victims who receive a DVRO from the juvenile court to repeat the process in family court. We reverse the order of the trial court and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY Appellant Priscila N. and her now ex-husband Leonardo G. married in 2008 and separated in 2011. Their relationship included repeated incidents of domestic violence against appellant, often in the presence of their three minor children. A marriage dissolution proceeding was initiated in the family court in September 2012. It was followed by the initiation of a dependency proceeding in August 2013. During the pendency of the juvenile case, Leonardo pushed appellant in front of their children, repeatedly telephoned her, and appeared uninvited at her home. In July 2013, the juvenile court issued a temporary restraining order directing Leonardo to remain 100 yards away from appellant and their children, except during monitored visits. Leonardo violated this order multiple