Background
P.V. filed a request for a domestic violence restraining order against L.G. in their ongoing dissolution proceeding, identifying two incidents of abuse. The first involved forcible sexual contact approximately three years earlier, which P.V. initially did not recognize as abuse until her therapist told her she was a victim of sexual assault. The second involved L.G.'s continued text messages despite P.V. blocking his calls and asking him to stop, which P.V. said triggered anxiety because of the past abuse. L.G. denied the allegations, calling them false accusations motivated by anger.
At the hearing, the trial court questioned both parties directly. P.V. testified about the sexual abuse, an incident where L.G. punched a truck window, and her ongoing fear. L.G. denied the sexual abuse but admitted punching the vehicle, and offered call logs showing P.V. had called him frequently. The trial court found the case close but concluded the evidence preponderated in P.V.'s favor, finding her testimony credible regarding the sexual assault, property destruction, and disturbing the peace. The court issued a five-year DVRO requiring L.G. to stay at least 100 yards away from P.V.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal first held that L.G. forfeited his appellate arguments because his briefing contained no citations to legal authority or the record. The court emphasized that self-represented litigants are not exempt from the rules requiring citation to authority and the record, and are not entitled to exceptionally lenient treatment. On that basis alone, the court could have affirmed.
Nevertheless, the court addressed the substance of L.G.'s due process claim and rejected it. The court found the trial court examined both parties, gave L.G. the opportunity to respond to the sexual abuse allegation, asked what evidence he wanted to introduce, and permitted him to present call logs and testimony. Apart from declining to consider one text message from P.V.'s friend, there was no indication the trial court refused to consider L.G.'s evidence or prevented him from presenting his account. The court also found the trial court explicitly considered the parties' ongoing communication but still found P.V. credible and found evidence of abuse.
The court concluded the proceedings provided L.G. with a meaningful opportunity to be heard and comported with due process. Applying abuse of discretion review, the court declined to reweigh evidence or disturb the trial court's credibility determinations, and affirmed the DVRO.
Key Takeaways
- Self-represented litigants on appeal must cite legal authority and the record to support their arguments; failure to do so may result in forfeiture, and courts are not required to grant exceptionally lenient treatment.
- A trial court conducting a contested DVRO hearing has both the discretion and duty to question witnesses to elicit material facts, so long as it does not assume the role of prosecutor or defense counsel.
- Due process in a DVRO hearing requires a meaningful opportunity to be heard, including the chance to examine evidence and cross-examine witnesses, but does not require the court to adopt a party's preferred procedures.
- Appellate courts review DVRO grants for abuse of discretion and will not reweigh evidence or disturb credibility determinations, which are uniquely within the trial court's province.
- Ongoing communication between parties does not automatically negate a finding of abuse or preclude a DVRO; trial courts may consider such evidence but still find abuse occurred and that the protected party's safety may be jeopardized.
Why It Matters
This opinion reinforces that procedural due process protections in DVRO hearings are robust but not unlimited, and that trial courts have considerable latitude in managing hearings involving self-represented litigants. It underscores that appellate forfeiture rules apply equally to all parties regardless of representation status.
The decision also illustrates the deference appellate courts give to trial court credibility findings in domestic violence cases, particularly where the trial court explicitly considers potentially conflicting evidence such as ongoing contact between the parties but nonetheless finds abuse by a preponderance of the evidence.
Read the full opinion (PDF) · Court docket