domestic violence case laws

Join us in urging your Members of Congress to act now and prevent catastrophic cuts to th [Read More]

Recent Supreme Court Decisions Impacting Domestic Violence Survivors

July 12, 2022

This term, the Supreme Court of the United States released a number of highly consequential decisions impacting people across the country, including domestic violence survivors. This Latest Update will discuss four cases from the 2021-2022 Supreme Court term.

The National Network to End Domestic Violence (NNEDV) is gravely concerned by the Court’s decisions in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen . We are committed to working with our membership of the 56 U.S. state and territorial coalitions against domestic violence and other allied anti-violence, civil rights, and reproductive justice organizations to respond to these decisions and prioritize survivors’ wellbeing.

In general, the current Supreme Court is overturning long-standing precedents and limiting civil and human rights. However, we are see there are two decisions— Golan v. Saada and Arizona v. City and County of San Francisco, California —that will have a positive impact on survivors. Below, we explain these four cases and discuss the effects they are likely to have on domestic violence survivors.

Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization

Roe v. Wade is the landmark 1973 Supreme Court decision which established that the constitutional right to privacy protects the right to choose an abortion. This right was later affirmed in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey . In the nearly fifty years since Roe was decided, a number of states have passed laws restricting abortion at various points during pregnancy. In 2018, Mississippi passed a law prohibiting abortion (with few exceptions) after 15 weeks. Jackson Women’s Health Organization—the only licensed abortion facility in the state—challenged the law as violating the right to abortion as established in Roe and Casey .

The Supreme Court ruled, in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization , against the facility, holding the Constitution does not protect the right to have an abortion.  This decision overturns Roe and Casey and allows the states to determine their own laws around abortion. This case marks the first time in history that the Supreme Court has taken away a fundamental right, and it is an unconscionable rollback of constitutional privacy rights for all people.

Following the Dobbs decision, more than half the states may quickly ban abortion. Thirteen states have what are called “trigger laws,” which banned abortion immediately upon the overturning of Roe . In the coming days and weeks, we will see millions of people across the United States lose their access to abortion as more of these trigger laws begin to take effect. Other states will have legislative bans move forward through state legislative action.

Right now, some people are unsure about when and whether they can get abortion care where they live or if they need to travel to another state. The New York Times’ “ Tracking the States Where Abortion is Now Banned ” resource is continually updated to provide the latest information about abortion laws. Abortion funds, clinics, and support networks are available to help people who are seeking an abortion.

State bans and restrictions will be devastating for low-income survivors, survivors of color, survivors with disabilities, and others who already face substantial barriers to accessing the healthcare they need. Without access to abortion care, domestic violence survivors are at risk of reproductive coercion. All people, including domestic violence survivors, deserve full control over their lives and decisions, including the ability to safely and freely decide whether or not to become, or stay, pregnant.

NNEDV is gravely concerned by the Dobbs decision. Domestic violence is about power and control, and many abusers choose to weaponize a partner’s bodily autonomy and reproductive choices as tools of violence. Preventing a partner from having an abortion is abuse, and forcing a partner to stay pregnant is, unfortunately, an effective way of keeping them dependent and trapped in the relationship itself. When survivors are able to choose for themselves whether to continue pregnancies, it can mean they are safely able to leave abusers and create new lives for themselves.

Last week, President Biden signed an Executive Order Protecting Access to Reproductive Health Care Services . However, executive authority in this area is relatively limited in its scope. We urge Congress to act immediately to pass the Women’s Health Protection Act or other federal legislation that would provide a federal law protecting abortion access.  Survivors’ lives depend on it. Keep reading in the Dobbs amicus brief we signed onto in 2021 as well as our full statement about the decision in this case.

New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen

Twenty-five states require individuals to have a permit in order to carry concealed weapons in public. Of these, eight states and the District of Columbia have “may issue” concealed carry laws, meaning that someone can be denied a concealed carry permit if they have not demonstrated a special need (“proper cause”) for having one. In 2021, two men, whose applications for concealed carry licenses were denied, challenged New York’s “may issue” law, arguing that having to demonstrate a special need for self-defense was a violation of their constitutional rights.

In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen held that New York’s “proper-cause” requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment by preventing citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms in public for self-defense. The Court struck down the New York handgun-licensing law that required New Yorkers who want to carry a handgun in public to show a special need to defend themselves.

In reaching this decision, Justice Thomas, writing for the Court, relied heavily on historical sources (from the 1200s to the early 1900s) to conclude there was no historical requirement that law-abiding citizens show a special need for self-defense, and that, moving forward, the government must show gun restrictions are consistent with the historical understanding of the Second Amendment.

NNEDV condemns the dangerous precedent that this case will likely set for survivors. Ending gun violence is critical to ending domestic violence. The presence of a firearm in an intimate partner violence situation increases the risk of homicide by 1,000%, and eliminating common-sense protections will only serve to exacerbate these alarming statistics and put more victims in danger. We are also concerned how this ruling may impact domestic violence-related gun safety laws by relying on the historical tradition of gun regulation rather than the government’s interest in preventing gun violence and protecting the safety of its citizens.

NNEDV supports firearms legislation to close existing loopholes and ensure dangerous abusers and others intent on harm cannot access firearms, including the House-passed Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2021 (H.R.8) and the Enhanced Background Checks Act of 2021 (H.R.1446). We also strongly support closing the “boyfriend loophole” and were encouraged by President Biden’s recent signing of the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, which will partially close this dangerous gap in the law and institute other common-sense gun safety measures.

Golan v. Saada

In 2018, Narkis Golan moved with her son from Italy to the United States to escape her abusive husband (and her son’s father), Isacco Saada. Saada asked a district court to return their son to Italy under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, which requires that custody disputes must be resolved in the child’s country of residence—which, in this case, would have been Italy. However, the district court found returning Golan and Saada’s son to Italy would have exposed him to a “grave risk” of psychological harm, based on his father’s abuse of his mother.

The district court ruled that their son could be returned to Italy, as long as Saada complied with certain protective measures, like attending therapy and staying away from Golan until the case was resolved. Golan appealed this decision and argued the district court should not have even considered imposing these measures, because the risk to her son’s safety was too serious. The district court coordinated with an Italian court to enforce the measures, despite Golan’s objections, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed this decision.

However, in a 9-0 decision vacating the lower court decision, the Supreme Court ruled in Golan v. Saada that courts may consider—but should not be required to consider—all protective measures, because there are certain “intolerable situations” (including “domestic violence in the home”) that are so severe no protective measures could possibly make them safe enough for a child to endure. This means that a court is not categorically required to examine all possible ameliorative measures before denying a Hague Convention petition for return of a child to a foreign country once the court has found that return would expose the child to a grave risk of harm.

Abuse is about power and control, and it can have severe, long-lasting impacts on not only a victim, but also on their children, who often carry trauma throughout their lives as a result of domestic violence. This trauma can occur whether the child is directly hurt or indirectly forced to witness one parent hurting another. NNEDV is pleased to see this decision in Golan because it sets an important precedent and prioritizes the safety of Saada and Golan’s son, based on an understanding of how witnessing abuse has already harmed (and may continue to harm) a child’s well-being and safety.

Read more in the amicus brief that NNEDV signed onto in 2021 . If you or someone you know is experiencing abuse during custody proceedings, learn more and find resources on WomensLaw.org .

Arizona v. City and County of San Francisco, California

In 2019, the Trump Administration expanded the grounds under which an immigrant would be ineligible to enter or become a permanent resident of the United States by defining a “public charge” to include an immigrant who would likely depend on cash benefits and other government assistance (like housing, food, and insurance). Based on the Trump Administration’s expanded definition, a greater number of noncitizens could be denied entry or permanent residency based on their likely need for assistance.

The Biden Administration chose to stop enforcing the public charge rule in March 2021, and eventually rescinded it. Several states (including Arizona) attempted to continue enforcing the rule. The states went to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, seeking to intervene there to defend the rule in the hope of having it reinstated. But the Ninth Circuit declined, prompting the states to appeal to the Supreme Court.  They asked the Supreme Court to consider whether states with interests should be permitted to intervene to defend a rule when the United States ceases to defend it.  The Court in Arizona v. City and County of San Francisco dismissed the case, indicating it was wrong to have taken up the dispute in the first place. As a result, the Ninth Circuit’s ruling (that states could not overrule the federal government and revive the policy) stands, and the Trump Administration’s expanded definition would not be enforced.

Many immigrant survivors escape to the United States with few resources, and having access to government assistance is often crucial to their journey to leave abusers, heal from trauma, and build safer lives for themselves and their children. For the past several years, when immigrant survivors feared that they would be denied permanent residency based on their need for help, it had a chilling, even life-threatening, effect on their ability to escape abuse. NNEDV is pleased to see that the lower court decision in Arizona stands and is grateful that enforcement of the Trump Administration’s expanded “public charge” definition has finally come to an end.

Learn more in letters from the Alliance for Immigrant Survivors that NNEDV signed onto in 2021 and 2022 , and in a City and County of San Francisco v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services amicus brief that NNEDV signed onto in 2020 . Learn more about immigration for domestic violence survivors at WomensLaw.org .

While the Supreme Court did issue a few decisions that may support survivors this term, the Court’s direction and outlook has been to roll back fundamental and long-standing rights, which will have dangerous repercussions for many people, including survivors. NNEDV is committed to working with our membership and allied organizations to respond to these decisions and ensure survivors are supported. We encourage you to sign up for our emails to stay in the loop about what comes next.

For peace and safety,

 Deborah J. Vagins, NNEDV President and CEO

• About SAFLII
• Terms of Use

South Africa: Supreme Court of Appeal

T[....] v t[....] (287/2021) [2022] zasca 109; 2022 (2) sacr 233 (sca); 2022 (6) sa 93 (sca) (15 july 2022).

The Advocates for Human Rights        Site Map            About the Site

330 Second Avenue South, Suite 800,  Minneapolis , MN 55401 USA      Phone: (612) 341-3302      Fax: (612) 341-2971    Email:  [email protected]

Although Stop Violence Against Women endeavors to provide useful and accurate information, Stop Violence Against Women does not warrant the accuracy of the materials provided. Accordingly, this Web Site and its information are provided "AS IS" without warranty of any kind, express or implied, including but not limited to, the implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular use or purpose, or non-infringement. Some jurisdictions do not allow the exclusion of implied warranties, so the above exclusion may not apply to you.  We reserve the right to make improvements and/or changes in the format and/or content of the information contained on the Web Site without notice.This information is provided with the understanding that Stop Violence Against Women and its partners are not engaged in rendering legal or other professional services. If legal advice or other expert assistance is required, the services of a competent professional should be sought.

Copyright © 2018 The Advocates for Human Rights. All rights reserved. Permission is granted to use this material for non-commercial purposes with proper attribution to The Advocates for Human Rights.

Domestic Violence Law: Case Law/Administrative Action

• Laws & Regulations
• Case Law/Administrative Action
• International Law
• Commentary and Resources
• Practice Materials
• Print Resources
• Lexis and Westlaw
• News, Blogs & Journals
• Evaluating Internet Resources
• Robertson v. U.S. ex rel. Watson, 560 U.S. 272 (2010)
• United States v. Hayes, 555 U.S. 415 (2009)
• Giles v. California, 554 U.S. 353 (2008)
• Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (2006)
• Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103 (2006)
• Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005)
• Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004)
• Nicholson v. Scoppetta, 344 F.3d 154 (2d Cir. 2003)
• Jessica Gonzales v. United States Inter-American Commission on Human Rights Report Nº 52/07 on Admissibility, July 24, 2007
• Jessica Gonzales v. United States Inter-American Commission on Human Rights Merits Report No. 80/11, July 21, 2011

Sources of Case Law

• Case Law of the European Court of Human Rights on Violence Against Women
• Tribal Domestic Violence Case Law: Annotations for Selected Tribal Cases Related to Domestic Violence Tribal Law and Policy Institute

Reports and Articles

• Child Custody and Visitation Decisions in Domestic Violence Cases: Legal Trends, Research Findings, and Recommendations Daniel G. Saunders, VAWnet, 1998

Administrative Action

• The Criminal Provisions of the Violence Against Women Act Apply to Otherwise Covered Conduct When the Offender and Victim Are the Same Sex Memorandum Opinion for the Acting Deputy Attorney General, April 27, 2010
• When a Prior Conviction Qualifies as a “Misdemeanor Crime of Domestic Violence” Memorandum Opinion for the Chief Counsel, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, 2007
• << Previous: Laws & Regulations
• Next: International Law >>
• Last Updated: Sep 28, 2023 12:23 PM
• URL: https://libraryguides.law.pace.edu/dv

Search Search Close

Leave this site safely

You can quickly leave this website by clicking the “X” in the top right or by pressing the Escape key twice.

To browse this site safely, be sure to regularly clear your browser history.

Security Alert

Internet usage can be monitored and is impossible to erase completely. If you’re concerned your internet usage might be monitored, call us at 800.799.SAFE (7233). Learn more about digital security and remember to clear your browser history after visiting this website.

Click the red “X” in the upper-right corner or “Escape” button on your keyboard twice at any time to leave TheHotline.org immediately.

Legal Help Reaching a safer place.

For some survivors, the criminal legal system may offer options for protection from abusive partners. The Hotline doesn’t give legal advice — nor are we legal advocates — but there may be legal resources available in your community that we can help you identify.

Contact us to talk through legal resources suited to your situation:

• Call 800.799.SAFE (7233)
• Or chat live now

What to expect when you contact us

Legal protections

Protective orders and restraining orders.

• A protective order is a legal document intended to prohibit your partner from physically coming near you or harming or harassing you, your children, or other loved ones.
• You can apply for a protective order at courthouses.
• Protective orders may be able to put a stop to physical abuse but they depend on your partner’s adherence to the law and law enforcement’s willingness to enforce the protective order. Psychological abuse is still possible, and a protective order should never replace a safety plan.

Other legal resources

• WomensLaw.org has state-by-state information about laws including protective and restraining orders and child custody laws.
• Legal Services Corporation is an independent nonprofit established by Congress in 1974 to provide financial support for civil legal aid to low-income Americans. The Corporation currently provides funding to 134 independent nonprofit legal aid organizations in every state, the District of Columbia, and U.S. Territories. 
• VINE allows crime victims to obtain timely and reliable information about criminal cases and the custody status of offenders 24 hours a day. Victims and other concerned citizens can also register to be notified by phone, email or TTY device. 
• The National Defense Center for Criminalized Survivors  addresses the unique needs of victims of gender-based violence who have been criminalized  as a result of  their experiences of being abused by providing specialized technical assistance, resources, and support for victims and their defense teams.
• Ask a volunteer legal services provider (attorneys who offer free legal services to low-income individuals) or a local advocacy group about actions against your partner for behaviors like criminal assault, aggravated assault, harassment, stalking, or interfering with child custody.

Protections for non-U.S. citizens

• The Immigrant Legal Resource Center and WomensLaw.org offer information about your rights as an immigrant. Further information about resources available to non-U.S. citizens can be found here .
• The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) states that people without citizenship status who are experiencing domestic violence and are married to abusers who are U.S. citizens or Legal Permanent Residents may qualify to self-petition for legal status. Learn more about USCIS guidelines concerning VAWA .
• Victims of certain crimes including domestic abuse and trafficking may be eligible for specific visas based on certain eligibility requirements .
• Legal actions to escape abuse can come with their own risks of immigration consequences depending on the findings of the judge who presides over your petition. A specialized immigration attorney should always be your first point of contact for immigration questions and concerns.

Safety and law enforcement

In assessing decisions about your safety, it’s important to consider as many aspects of your situation as possible. This includes accounting for ways that law enforcement may threaten your safety depending on circumstances of race, gender, ability, class, and more. Decisions about your safety should always include considerations of the potential risks that come with contacting law enforcement.

• If possible, identify non-law enforcement emergency service providers in your area before violence occurs to minimize interactions with the criminal legal system during an emergency. This can include local organizations, networks of trusted friends and neighbors, or other groups working towards transformative justice solutions.
• If you determine that it’s safe for you and others for you to do so, call 9-1-1 during a life-threatening emergency.
• For non-life threatening situations, consider contacting us 24/7 to speak confidentially with one of our expert advocates.

Everyone deserves a healthy, safe relationship.

We're here to support you.

Learn more about your options:

Protective orders and legal resources, safety and law enforcement.

• Call 1.800.799.SAFE (7233)
• Chat live now

Visit our page for Privacy Policy. Msg&DataRatesMayApply. Text STOP to opt out.

How Domestic Abusers Weaponize the Courts

After a breakup, litigation is often a way for harassers to force their victims to keep seeing them.

When the phone rang one evening in June 2016, “D” could guess who was calling even before her mother answered. He’d called the house before—D knew it was him—but he’d always remained silent after her mother picked up. This time, the caller breathed heavily before finally identifying himself as D’s ex-boyfriend. “Stop calling here; she doesn’t want to talk to you,” her mother said, and hung up.

D started to panic. She’d never given her ex the number to her home, where she lived with her mother, and she had no idea how he’d found it. They’d broken up two months earlier, and he’d been stalking and harassing her ever since. Over the past two years, this harassment has been taking place in a courtroom.

Since July 2017, D has been visiting Manhattan family court, engaged in a battle that her ex-boyfriend keeps dragging out by continuing to contest the protective order she’s filed against him. (D is being identified by her first initial only, to protect her safety and privacy.) It has kept her awake at night, this never-ending parade through courtrooms and her local police precinct, the trips back and forth at least once every three months.

Many abusers misuse the court system to maintain power and control over their former or current partners, a method sometimes called “vexatious” or “abusive” litigation, also known as “paper” or “separation” abuse, or “stalking by way of the courts.” Perpetrators file frivolous lawsuits—sometimes even from prison—to keep their victims coming back to court to face them. After a breakup, the courts are often the only tool left for abusers seeking to maintain a hold over their victims’ lives. The process costs money and time, and can further traumatize victims of intimate-partner violence, even after they have managed to leave the relationship. Only one U.S. state, Tennessee, has a law specifically aimed at stopping a former romantic partner from filing vexatious litigation against an ex.

According to a 2017 report from Georgia’s Domestic Violence Fatality Review Project, which tracks domestic-violence-related deaths in the state, “Although there is little data on the frequency of harassing court filings, sometimes referred to as vexatious litigation, use of the court to harass victims of intimate partner violence and stalking appears to be commonplace.” For D, it certainly was.

D met her ex-boyfriend through an online-dating service in the summer of 2015. She remembers him as attentive and a good listener. “You’re in a new relationship and everything is wonderful,” D says. But then she “started noticing he was a bit too available.”

D says her ex didn’t have much of a social or professional life, and would criticize her for spending time on hers. When she tried to break up with him in December 2015, she says he threatened to hurt himself, so she backed down. Finally, in April 2016, she broke off their relationship. That’s when the calls started.

They came pouring in from her ex’s number, phone numbers of her ex’s family members, and anonymous numbers. He emailed her up to 20 times a week, promising over and over that he would get a job. “He doesn’t know how to take the word no ,” D says.  Even though she responded only once (to an email purporting to be from her ex’s brother), cc’ing her ex and telling him to leave her alone, the calls and emails continued for months. In July 2016, they abruptly stopped. The silence lasted a year.

In July 2017, D received threatening emails from her ex containing information about her personal life, seemingly intended to show that he’d been tracking her. An aggressive text message from an anonymous number, claiming to be from her ex’s brother (D believes that it was from her ex), finally caused her to file a police report.

That month she also sought to get a protective order against her ex. The first judge she saw turned her down. D hadn’t taken copies of any of her ex’s emails with her to court to prove her case—she hadn’t known that she would need them. “You’re not supposed to need that,” says D’s lawyer, Rebecca Moy, who works at Sanctuary for Families, a nonprofit organization that provides legal aid and other services to domestic-violence survivors and their families. To file a protective order in New York City family court , petitioners must have detailed, written descriptions of the incidents causing them to file, not physical proof.

D was ultimately able to file a criminal complaint with the New York Police Department stating that her ex had sent her threatening emails, phone calls, and texts. She received her first temporary order of protection during her first court appearance in mid-July. Her ex verbally contested the order at the hearing, denying that he had stalked or harassed her. Since then, he has taken her back to court seven times, sometimes crying hysterically in the middle of hearings, causing delays.

Every time D appears with her ex in court, they have a set amount of time to get through D’s case. Each delay means an additional court appearance, and months pass before D and her abuser can return to continue the trial. Sometimes, as the two of them wait in the courthouse for their hearing to start, D says her ex repeatedly bangs his head against the wall and stares at her. “I think at this point he knows that the only way he’s going to see her or be able to talk to her is through the court system,” Moy says.

D and her ex dated for about nine months. He has been harassing her for three years, more than half of that through the courts.

Unlike D, many people who face abusive litigation were once married to their abusers or shared homes and children with them, as disputes about marriage, shared property, and children provide clear pathways to legal proceedings. Litigation involving child support and custody is one of the most common ways domestic-violence perpetrators prolong contact with their victims, according to a 2011 report by Mary Przekop in the Seattle Journal of Social Justice . Abusive fathers, Przekop writes, are “more than twice as likely” to petition for sole custody of their children as non-abusive fathers.

The report documents multiple cases of abusive fathers seeking custody, including a story from the early 1990s in which an abusive ex-husband was found to be sexually molesting his daughter during visitations. This revelation caused the court to cancel his visitation rights in 1995, only for him to continue to pursue visitation through the legal system for years. “There’s a whole pattern of the next court date, and the motions I go through building up to it,” the abuser’s ex-wife says in the report, “and then actually being there and seeing him, and him stalking me in the halls … and having to do that week after week, year after year. It just never gets any better.”

“Perpetrators of domestic violence become very adept at using the legal system as one more tactic of control against the victim,” Przekop writes.

Moy has worked with clients whose former partners have exploited family court to seek custody of their victims’ children, including an abuser who, according to court documents, claimed paternity from prison despite the fact that he is not the child’s biological father. Moy’s client is the child’s mother, with whom the abuser lived on and off during their years of dating. He’s currently incarcerated for attempting to murder Moy’s client.

Kara Bellew, a partner at Rower LLC who has practiced matrimonial and family law since 2005, calls litigation abuse “very, very common.” She often cautions clients with abusive partners, “Once you open the floodgates of the court, it leaves you incredibly vulnerable to being harassed.”

However, research on this topic remains scarce. T. K. Logan, a behavioral scientist and professor at the University of Kentucky who has studied stalking for nearly 20 years, says that vexatious litigation can be hard to document, because the lines blur between a “standard” custody battle and one employed specifically by an abuser to threaten someone. Logan has studied women whose abusers used any means possible to follow and frighten them after they broke up. “The courtroom just becomes one more tool,” she says. This type of stalking, however, sends an additional message—not only is the abuser finding a new avenue for harassment, but he’s also telling his victim that the court isn’t a safe place for her.

Recommended Reading

The Particular Cruelty of Domestic Violence

Why It’s Hard to Protect Domestic-Violence Survivors Online

Nearly Half of All Murdered Women Are Killed by Romantic Partners

In addition to the stress incurred from this experience, abusive litigation can drain victims’ finances, cause them to miss work, pull them away from their families, and force them to navigate the complex legal system, often on their own. D didn’t begin working with Moy until her fourth court appearance, after they met at a Sanctuary for Families event at the Manhattan Family Justice Center, where people seeking legal services can determine if they qualify for pro bono representation. Before that, D had to go to court alone. In New York, those who appear in family court are entitled to free legal aid if their income “ falls below a certain level ,” and D didn’t qualify. (Sanctuary for Families has more inclusive standards.)

Courts tend to be overburdened with cases—“especially family court,” Moy says. The judge in D’s case often has to cut short proceedings because her docket is overwhelmed with other cases. “I think we got 45 minutes or half an hour worth of trial last time we were at court,” Moy told me in September. “I would say we have at least an hour more of D’s testimony [that we didn’t have time to share].”

Family court tends to attract newer judges. The job offers less prestige and a higher case volume. “Therefore, you have judges with little or no experience trying to afford due process to people, without the understanding of the way courts can be used to further abuse victims,” says Carroll Kelly, the administrative judge of the Miami-Dade courts’ domestic-violence division.

Of course, it’s not always easy for judges to tell whether litigation is abusive or legitimate. This can be particularly true in contentious child-custody battles, where even good-faith attempts to gain custody can entail lots of legal persistence and drag on for years. In such complex and emotional cases, judges may have trouble determining where to draw the line between parents’ desperation to be with their kids and true abusive behavior.

In her 20 years overseeing domestic-violence cases, Kelly says she has found creative solutions to circumvent clear cases of abusive litigation, such as letting survivors participate in hearings with their abusers by telephone.

Retired Kentucky Judge Peter Macdonald says he once told a jailed abuser, who repeatedly filed motions so that he could see his victim in court, that he could attend his next hearing by video. It was an empty threat, Macdonald says, but “it was enough for [the abuser] to stop petitioning. He wasn’t interested in a change of circumstances—he just wanted to be in the room with [his victim].”

Historically, judges have had the power to fight back against vexatious litigation. Federal courts have allowed judges to “discipline” parties who file “frivolous or improper claims” for the purpose of “deter[ring] the abusive conduct,” according to the 2011 Seattle Journal paper . Courts can also bar someone who continues to file frivolous suits from making new claims against the same person, according to a 1986 study on “frivolous litigation” written by John W. Wade, though it doesn’t address intimate-partner abuse specifically. Both last year’s Georgia Domestic Violence Fatality Review report and another 2011 article on court stalking suggest that laws should specifically target domestic-violence-related stalking with clear, direct language in order to be effective.

Tennessee recently took that advice. In May 2018, the state’s governor signed a law aimed at combatting “stalking by way of the courts.” The law, which took effect that July , lets judges hold hearings to determine whether a defendant’s ex-partner or family member is filing frivolous lawsuits intended specifically to harass, stalk, or otherwise cause harm. It also gives Tennessee judges the power to prevent these abusers from filing lawsuits for up to seven years following their first court-stalking offense.

Tennessee state Representative Mike Carter, a Republican, sponsored the law, citing his experience as an attorney and former judge. During his legal career, Carter says, he witnessed multiple examples of cases as “a litigious form of domestic assault,” according to an Associated Press story announcing the new law .

In one particularly harrowing case, Carter watched a former Memphis-based lawyer, Fred Auston Wortman III, go to prison for trying to murder his then-wife three separate times. Although he’s now incarcerated, Wortman continues to file lawsuits against his ex-wife, primarily related to their shared children. According to the AP, as of July 2018, Wortman’s ex-wife, a teacher, owed more than $100,000 in legal fees.

Tennessee is the only state with such a targeted law. In order to protect people from abusive litigation, other states still have to apply laws originally intended for other purposes, such as legislation designed to let small-time protesters stand up to wealthy companies using frivolous lawsuits to drain their financial resources. These statutes, known as anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) laws, have come to the aid of abusive-litigation victims multiple times since the early 2000s.

The Public Participation Project is an organization that advocates for passing federal anti-SLAPP legislation, and publicizes its ability to help protect domestic-violence survivors. Currently, the group is lobbying in favor of a bill making its way through the state legislature in Ohio: S.B. 206. Bridget Mahoney, the chair of the Ohio Domestic Violence Network, testified in June 2018 in support of the bill, explaining how she and her daughter had suffered at the hands of her ex-husband and the courts.

“She lived in fear that the very courts designed to protect her would force her to spend time with her abuser,” Mahoney said of her then-teenage daughter. “At times, she didn’t want to live.”

Tort claims, which are used to fight harmful actions that don’t qualify as crimes—such as purposefully causing emotional distress—are another possible way for survivors to combat abusers’ frivolous lawsuits. Survivors can claim that they’ve suffered damages from these lawsuits, for which abusers can be found legally liable. But tort claims are rarely used in this way, several lawyers, including Joel Kurtzberg, a partner at the legal firm Cahill Gordon & Reindel, told me. “Often, victims don’t know what their options are, or don’t have the wherewithal to bring the action without somebody representing them who knows [the law],” he said.

When I met D back in September, her next court date was set for November. “I thought this would be a quick process,” she said with clenched fists. The outcome D was hoping for was to be granted a protective order that lasts for two years—the longest one she can get under state law without “aggravating circumstances.” D hopes to leave New York one day, the city where she grew up, for a different life, one where she can live comfortably with a well-paying job outside of the city grind. This was her dream long before she met her ex, but now that she’s embroiled in this legal process with him, she may not be able to move, or move on.

Moy said she fears for D and other clients whose abusers use the court system to harass them. Her biggest fear, she said, is that “even after the legal part is over, they’ll never move on and begin that process of being able to recuperate.”

After the protective order expires, D would potentially have to go back to court in New York to renew it—possibly starting the process over again—or risk her abuser following her with impunity. “Even if I left New York, I think he would … figure out the laws of the state [I move to] and find a way to stalk [me],” D said.

In what seemed like an exhausting rehearsal for her next court date, D checked off an imaginary list, looking at me as if I were the judge hearing her case: “Here’s my evidence; here’s all the emails and crazy voicemails he left. What else do I need to give to end this so I don’t have to see his face anymore in court?”

When I last checked in with Moy, at the start of April, D’s trial had finally ended the week prior. She was granted a three-year order of protection—more than the two years she had originally hoped for. The judge had added an extra year because of D’s ex’s troublesome conduct during court hearings.

But D’s ex hasn’t given up. He’s already filed to appeal the order.

This article was reported in collaboration with The Fuller Project , a non-profit news organization that investigates issues affecting women.

Jessica Gonzales v. U.S.A.

What's at stake.

In the first case brought by a survivor of domestic violence against the U.S. before an international human rights tribunal, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) found that the United States violated the human rights of Jessica Lenahan (formerly Gonzales) and her children. The decision underscores that the U.S. is failing in its legal obligation to protect women and girls from domestic violence.

In June 1999, Jessica Gonzales’ three young daughters, ages seven, nine and ten, were abducted by her estranged husband and killed after the Colorado police refused to enforce a restraining order against him.

Although Gonzales repeatedly called the police, telling them of her fears for her daughters’ safety, they failed to respond. Hours later, Gonzales’ husband drove his pick-up truck to the police department and opened fire. He was shot dead by the police. The slain bodies of the three girls were subsequently discovered in the back of his pickup truck.

Gonzales filed a lawsuit against the police, but in June 2005 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that she had no Constitutional right to police enforcement of her restraining order. She then filed a petition with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, saying that the inaction of the police and the Supreme Court’s decision violated her human rights.

Status: In a landmark decision, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) found the U.S. government responsible for human rights violations against Jessica Lenahan (formerly Gonzales) and her three deceased children who were victims of domestic violence.

MORE > Castle Rock v. Gonzales : Making the Court’s Protection Real (3/17/2005), interview with Jessica > VIDEO: Watch Jessica’s Testimony Before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (10/22/2008) English | Español > BLOG: Protection from Domestic Violence is a Human Right (10/22/2008) > NEWS: Colorado Domestic Violence Survivor Seeks Justice in International Tribunal (10/22/2008) > IACHR’s Admissibility Decision (10/5/2007)

Timeline: Jessica Gonzales v. USA»

Legal Documents

• 10/27/2014 Jessica Gonzales v. U.S.A. - IACHR Testimony from Rashida Manjoo, UN Special Rapporteur on Violence against Women

Date Filed: 10/27/2014

Court: Inter-American Commission on Human Rights

Affiliate: Colorado

• 10/20/2008 Jessica Gonzales v. U.S.A - Domestic Violence As a Form of Torture

Date Filed: 10/20/2008

• 10/17/2008 Jessica Gonzales v. U.S.A - Benefits and Limitations of VAWA

Date Filed: 10/17/2008

• 06/20/2011 Jessica Gonzales v. U.S.A. - Legal Documents

Date Filed: 06/20/2011

• 10/17/2008 Jessica Gonzales v. U.S.A - Children's Rights
• 10/15/2008 Jessica Gonzales v. U.S.A - Comparative Assessment of Domestic Violence Laws and Policies

Date Filed: 10/15/2008

• 03/02/2007 Summary of Jessica Gonzales' Argument Before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights

Date Filed: 03/02/2007

• 09/25/2006 Jessica Gonzales v. USA - Government Response

Date Filed: 09/25/2006

Press Releases

U.S. Fails to Adequately Comply with Domestic Violence Recommendations Issued by Inter-American Commission on Human Rights

International Commission Finds United States Denied Justice to Domestic Violence Survivor

Colorado Domestic Violence Survivor Seeks Justice In International Tribunal

Inter-American Commission on Human Rights Holds U.S. Responsible for Protecting Domestic Violence Victims

Domestic Violence Victim Sues U.S. Government for International Human Rights Violations

U.S. Human Rights Record Strongly Condemned by Leading International Body

News & Commentary

Jessica Lenahan Lived Through a Domestic Violence Nightmare and Emerged as a Heroic Advocate for Police Reform

Justice for Jessica: Holding the U.S. Accountable for Protecting Domestic Violence Survivors

Stop Domestic Violence in Its Tracks

Make My Case Count!

Domestic Violence as a Human Rights Violation

Other Documents

Jessica gonzales v. u.s.a. - letter from petitioners on implementation of iachr decision, jessica gonzales v. usa – iachr final report, faces of justice denied - jessica gonzales, comprehensive list of women's rights resources, jessica gonzales v. usa - amicus briefs submitted for october 2008 merits hearing, jessica gonzales' statement before the iachr, statement: jessica gonzales at the inter-american commission on human rights, witness: father roy bourgeois - victim of fbi spying, witness: khaled el-masri - victim of extraordinary rendition, aclu's vision.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Tristique senectus et netus et malesuada fames ac turpis. Pharetra diam sit amet nisl suscipit adipiscing. Sodales ut eu sem integer vitae. Cursus in hac habitasse platea dictumst quisque sagittis purus. In hendrerit gravida rutrum quisque. Nisl pretium fusce id velit ut tortor. Mauris pellentesque pulvinar pellentesque habitant morbi tristique senectus et netus. A arcu cursus vitae congue mauris rhoncus aenean vel elit. Id aliquet risus feugiat in ante metus. Leo a diam sollicitudin tempor id eu nisl nunc. Pretium viverra suspendisse potenti nullam ac tortor. Egestas diam in arcu cursus euismod quis viverra.

Proin fermentum leo vel orci porta non. Tortor pretium viverra suspendisse potenti nullam ac tortor vitae. Velit aliquet sagittis id consectetur purus ut faucibus. Vel elit scelerisque mauris pellentesque pulvinar pellentesque habitant. Felis eget velit aliquet sagittis id consectetur purus ut faucibus. Tempor nec feugiat nisl pretium fusce id velit ut tortor. Lacinia at quis risus sed vulputate odio. Magnis dis parturient montes nascetur ridiculus mus mauris vitae ultricies. Consequat mauris nunc congue nisi. Adipiscing elit pellentesque habitant morbi tristique senectus et netus et. Praesent elementum facilisis leo vel fringilla. Faucibus nisl tincidunt eget nullam non nisi est sit amet.

Learn More About the Issues in This Case

• Human Rights
• Human Rights and Women's Rights
• Violence Against Women
• Women's Rights

• Forms & Rules
• Policy & Administration
• News & Reference

• Domestic Violence

Criminal Law Cases

Learn more about domestic violence and the criminal court process .

Family Law Cases

Learn more about domestic violence in family law cases . If your case involves children, learn more about custody and visitation .

Juvenile Law Cases

Some families experiencing domestic violence will become involved with the juvenile court. If the county child protective services (CPS) agency investigates allegations and a court determines that a child is at risk of harm in the home, the court may make the child a dependent of the court. Learn more about juvenile dependency court . If a child breaks the law or is beyond parental control, the county probation office may investigate and the child may be involved with juvenile delinquency court. Learn more about juvenile delinquency court .

Education Overview

Family and juvenile dependency mediators and child custody evaluators must handle cases involving domestic violence according to state laws and rules of court and must have local protocols consistent with statutory requirement and statewide rules. Learn more .

Violence Against Women Education Project (VAWEP)

The VAWEP provides the courts with information, educational materials, and training on the court’s role in responding to these cases. VAWEP is funded by the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services with resources from the federal Office on Violence Against Women to support the superior courts in creating a more effective response to cases of domestic violence, sexual assault, stalking, teen dating violence and human trafficking. 

Violence Against Women Education Project Fact Sheet  

Resources and Judicial Tools on Family Violence in Tribal Communities  

Bench Guides

An emergency protective order (EPO) is a short-term restraining order that can protect you if you have an emergency with domestic abuse, or if someone is hurting or threatening to hurt you or your children. EPOs are granted by a judge, and requested by a police officer. This guide is designed for judges who decide on EPO requests, and can be used by others who are involved in the process.

Domestic Violence Restraining Order Bench Guide

Civil domestic violence restraining orders (DVROs) are one of the most common restraining orders issued in California. This guide can be used by judges, court staff, and providers working with litigants who need to ask for, or respond to, a domestic violence restraining order.

This episode highlights the important role judges and providers play in keeping families safe when domestic violence is alleged or found. 

You will hear from:

• Shelly La Botte, Senior Analyst at the Judicial Council of California
• Judge Brooke Blecher, Superior Court of Santa Clara
• And a recap from people from episode 1 (Mary, Crystal, and Judge Victor Hwang)

A Journey to Healing: How One Tribe Incorporates a Traditional Approach to Address Domestic Violence Listen · 37:15      ( Transcript )

Before you listen:  Please be aware that this episode includes first-person accounts of domestic violence. The people sharing them agreed to do so in hopes that others might benefit from what they’ve learned.

Native American women — and men — are; more likely than white counterparts  to experience intimate partner violence. That violence is often grounded in trauma that impacts whole communities. For indigenous people, it can be traced back to colonization as well as to racism and oppression that persists today. In this episode, you’ll hear members of California’s Yurok Tribe talk about the impact of domestic violence, and how the tribal court worked to put in place a culturally-relevant, and more effective, path to healing.

In this episode, you will hear from:

• “Mark” and “Lydia” who share their personal experiences
• The Honorable Abbi Abinanti, Elder and Chief Judge of the Yurok Tribe
• Lori Nesbitt, Facilitator of the Yurok Batterers Intervention Program/Yurok Tribal Court Opioid Program Manager
• Lee Romney, producer of this episode, as narrator

An Invisible Epidemic: A Survivor’s Story and What Courts Should Know About Traumatic Brain Injury Listen · 34:08     ( Transcript )

This podcast shines light on a condition that Dr. Eve Valera describes as an epidemic that our society does not know enough about. The condition is traumatic brain injuries, or TBIs, in women who have experienced intimate partner violence. As Dr. Valera explains, what we know about TBIs is mostly based on research in men, specifically military members and professional athletes. Listen to this podcast to hear the personal impact of TBI on a survivor; what we know about TBI in intimate partner violence victims and survivors; and what lawyers, judges and other professionals in the court system can do to better accommodate victims and survivors.

In this podcast you will hear from:

• “Mary”, a survivor of intimate partner violence
• Dr. Eve Valera, Researcher and Associate Professor, Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging, Harvard Medical School
• The Honorable Julie Emede, Judge, Superior Court of Santa Clara County
• Mervyn Degaños, podcast producer, as narrator

These episodes were supported by a subgrant awarded by the state administering office for the STOP Formula Grant Program.  The opinions, findings, conclusions, and recommendations expressed in this publication/program/exhibition are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the state or U.S. Department of Justice, Office on Violence Against Women.

Domestic Violence Safety Partnership

The Domestic Violence Safety Partnership (DVSP) was developed to enhance safety and improve practices and protocols in the handling of domestic violence cases. A court that participates in the DVSP uses the Domestic Violence Safety Partnership Self-Assessment—a tool furnished by the Judicial Council—to examine its own practices and needs in the handling of domestic violence cases, especially in relation to legal mandates. The court may then seek technical assistance from the Judicial Council.

Rules, Forms, and Legislation

To review rules of court, court forms, and court-related legislation, please click on the relevant link below.  If you are interested in domestic violence specifically, please search within these sections for "domestic violence." Statewide Rules of Court Forms Court-Related Legislation

Resources for Professionals

• The Greenbook
• Batterer Intervention Systems in California
• Snapshot Study 2008: Summary Findings
• Stat Sheet: Domestic Violence in Court-Based Child Custody
• Research Update: Domestic Violence in Court-Based Child Custody Mediation Cases in California (November 2002) 
• Domestic Violence Courts: A Descriptive Study (May 2000)
• Addressing Domestic Violence, Child Safety and Well-Being: Collaborative Strategies for California Families
• Tribal/State Program - Family Violence Curriculum, Bench and Other Judicial Tools
• Judicial Council Report Summary
• Judicial Council Report
• Recommended Guidelines and Practices for Improving the Administration of Justice in Domestic Violence Cases

Quick Links

• Domestic Violence Self-Help
• National Domestic Violence Hotline

Legal Dictionary

The Law Dictionary for Everyone

Domestic Violence

The term domestic violence refers to abusive behavior in any personal relationship that allows one partner to intimidate, or to gain power and control over the other. This is often thought of to occur between married spouses or in other intimate relationships, but actually refers to any family relationship, or persons living in the same home.

Domestic violence includes physical, sexual, psychological, and emotional abuse, as well as threats of violence or economic control. These are behaviors intended to intimidate, frighten, terrorize, humiliate, manipulate, coerce, blame, or injure someone. To explore this concept, consider the following domestic violence definition.

Definition of Domestic Violence

• The infliction or threat of acts of violence or abuse against another person living in the same household, especially a family member or intimate partner.

1890s   English (first known use of the term)

History of Domestic Violence

Historically, through the late 1800s, violence and abuse committed against women within the confines of their marriage was implicitly accepted as a husband’s right. It wasn’t until the late 1970s that domestic violence started gaining recognition as a crime of violence, and it took another 20 years for federal and state legislation to catch up, providing protection against, and serious punishment for, such acts.

While the term was initially used to label physical assaults against women by their husbands, the fact is, acts of domestic violence are committed by both men and women, against their spouses or same-sex partners. Modern domestic violence laws extend to protect any members of the same household, including siblings, cohabiting individuals, and roommates.

Domestic violence statistics estimate that about 4 million women each year are subjected to abuse committed by their male partners. It is the leading cause of serious injury to women between the ages of 15 and 44, and more than 30 percent of women murdered each year are killed by a former husband or boyfriend. Unfortunately, statistics regarding domestic violence committed by women against their male partners, and within same-sex partnerships, are scarce, as these individuals are less likely to report such acts due to fear of ridicule. While substance abuse and the stresses of poverty contribute to the prevalence of domestic violence, it occurs in all cultural, socioeconomic, educational, and religious environments.

What is Domestic Violence

Many forms of abuse fall under the umbrella of domestic violence. In addition to hitting, shoving, kicking, slapping, and throwing objects, domestic violence applies to intimidation, domination, stalking , and other illegal acts.

• Physical Abuse – Includes such physical acts as shoving, grabbing, pinching, hitting, slapping, hair pulling, and other acts that could cause injury. Denying medical care, forcing alcohol or drugs upon someone, and restraining them from seeking help are also considered physical abuse.
• Sexual Abuse – Includes coercing sexual contact, rape (including marital rape), attack on sexual body parts, forcing sex following physical violence, and sexually demeaning another.
• Emotional Abuse – Involves the destruction of a person’s self worth or self esteem. Acts of emotional abuse include name-calling, constant criticism, disparaging an individual’s abilities and talents, and damaging an individual’s relationship with his or her children.
• Psychological Abuse – Involves creating fear and a sense of isolation and helplessness. Acts of psychological abuse include causing fear through intimidation, threatening to harm a spouse, partner, children, family, friends, pets, or self. Also, intentionally isolating a person from family, friends, school, work, and extracurricular activities.
• Economic Abuse – Involves exerting control over another individual by maintaining total control of financial resources, withholding a partner’s access to money or financial assets , or hindering or forbidding employment or education.

While domestic violence is seen as a pattern of acts that constitute abuse, some acts are so malicious as to be considered criminal in and of themselves. These include such acts as stalking, intentional endangerment, criminal coercion , kidnapping, and unlawful or false imprisonment .

How to Obtain a Domestic Violence Restraining Order

Domestic violence laws enable victims of domestic violence may seek a restraining order from the court to protect themselves from further abuse. While the exact process of obtaining a domestic violence restraining order varies slightly by jurisdiction , most involve obtaining an emergency protective order (“EPO”) from police who respond to the scene of a domestic violence incident. The EPO prohibits the perpetrator from approaching or contacting the victim for a specified period, giving the victim time to file for a domestic violence restraining order with the court.

An application for a domestic violence restraining order (some states use the term “Protective Order”) may be filed with the court with no court fees required. While an attorney may be used to accomplish this, the courts make standardized forms, which are easy to fill out, available for victims to file on their own. In the application, the victim must provide identifying information for the perpetrator, as well as a detailed accounting of the abuse. It is important to include as much detail as possible, including dates and times of abuse if known, injuries sustained, medical treatment sought, and how each incident made the victim feel both physically and emotionally. Photos of injuries and/or property damages may be included.

A hearing will be scheduled within a few days, until which a temporary restraining order is in place. At the hearing, if the victim shows valid need for an order of protection , the judge may order a permanent domestic violence restraining order (“DVRO”), which will last from one to five years. The restraining order will specify certain conditions of which a violation brings an immediate penalty of arrest and incarceration, as well as potential misdemeanor or felony prosecution.

• No Contact – Prohibits the perpetrator from approaching, attacking, stalking, calling, texting, emailing, or otherwise contacting the victim.
• Stay Away – An order for the perpetrator to stay a minimum amount of distance, usually 100 yards, from the victim, as well as the victim’s home, job, school, and car.
• Move Out – Requires the perpetrator to move out of the home shared with the victim immediately. This order often requires a police officer to be present as the perpetrator removes his belongings.
• Firearms Surrender – Requires the perpetrator to surrender any firearms he or she possesses, and prohibits him or her from purchasing or possessing another firearm for the duration of the restraining order.
• Peaceful Contact – In situations in which the parties have children in common, the abuser may be allowed “peaceful” communication with the victim for specified purposes, usually regarding the care and transfer of the children.

Who is Covered by a Domestic Violence Restraining Order

Domestic violence laws allow other people, in addition to the victim, to be covered by a Domestic Violence Restraining Order. Just who is protected by a single order is specified in the order. Individuals covered under a single DVRO may include family members and anyone in a close day-to-day relationship with the victim, such as children, parents, roommate, or current romantic partner of the victim. In this case, the Stay Away and No Contact provisions of the order apply to the other listed individuals as well as the victim. In some jurisdictions, the family pet may be included in the protective order, to prevent the abuser from harming the pet to inflict emotional distress and fear.

Child Custody and Visitation

When the victim and abuser have children in common, a very specific order regarding child visitation will be included in the DVRO. This is usually a temporary order, and often specifies supervised visitation. The order for child custody and visitation may be changed or updated as the divorce and child custody matter progresses through the court system.

Moving to Another State

Many victims of domestic violence find themselves moving to another state to escape the abuse. The Full Faith and Credit Clause of the U.S. Constitution requires that a protective order issued by one state be upheld in any other state. This helps protect the victim in the event the abuser stalks him or her to the new state of residence. It is a good idea for the victim to present the current protective order to the local law enforcement agency so they can keep a copy on file. The court in the new state may issue a new order specific to that jurisdiction.

Publicity Bought by the O.J. Simpson Case

A spotlight was shone on the issue of domestic violence in the 1990s, when former professional football player O.J. Simpson was accused of, and tried for, murdering his ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson, and her friend, Ronald Goldman. While still together, the couple had a history of reported domestic violence incidents, including spousal battery and death threats. Although Nichole eventually left the marriage, it appeared that the pattern of abuse continued, finally resulting in her violent death. Although Simpson was acquitted of the murder charges, the view on the issue of domestic violence in the U.S. was changed forever.

States began making changes to their judicial and law enforcement systems to afford greater protections against domestic violence, including mandatory arrests at the time of the incident, and harsher punishments.

Filing a Civil Lawsuit for a Domestic Violence Case

Some people mistakenly believe that, if a person has been put on trial in criminal court, such as for domestic violence charges, he or she cannot be tried in civil court for the same acts. This is not true. The Fifth Amendment prohibits trying an individual for the same charges in criminal court, where his or her freedom is at stake. Most domestic violence cases may be sued in civil court as well as charged in criminal court. Victims of domestic violence may file civil lawsuits for damages due to injuries sustained, including such claims as medical bills, psychological trauma, and pain and suffering.

After a jury in the O.J. Simpson murder trial found him not guilty , the victims’ families filed a civil lawsuit for wrongful death. Because, in a civil lawsuit, the burden of proof is must less stringent than in criminal court, the families were able to prove, by a “ preponderance of evidence ,” that Simpson was responsible for the deaths, and were awarded $85 million.

Related Legal Terms and Issues

• Stalking – The act of pursuing game, prey, or a person by stealth; the act of harassing an individual in an aggressive, threatening, or illegal manner.
• Coercion – The act of using force or intimidation to ensure compliance.
• False Imprisonment – The unlawful restraint of a person within a limited area, depriving him of his right to freedom of movement. False or unlawful imprisonment applies to that committed by private individuals as well as governmental agencies.
• Endangerment – Conduct that is wrongful or reckless, and likely to result in grievous bodily harm to, or death of, another person.
• Emotional Distress – A negative emotional reaction, such as anguish, humiliation, or grief, resulting from the conduct of another individual. Also referred to as “ mental anguish .”
• Preponderance of Evidence – The belief by a jury or judge that evidence presented by one party in a civil lawsuit is more convincing, or believed to be more truthful, than that presented by the opposing party. In other words, it is more likely than not that such evidence is true.

• Crimes A-to-Z
• Crimes by Code Section
• Post-Conviction

Crimes by Code

Every crime in California is defined by a specific code section. Our attorneys explain the law, penalties and best defense strategies for every major crime in California.

• Business & Professions Code
• Health & Safety Code
• Vehicle Code

California DUI

DUI arrests don't always lead to convictions in court. Police officer mistakes, faulty breathalyzers and crime lab errors may get your charges reduced or dismissed. Visit our California DUI page to learn more.

California DUI Laws A to Z

• California DUI laws
• Car insurance issues
• DUI penalties
• Fighting a DUI case
• License suspensions
• Plea bargains to lesser charges

Post Conviction

A criminal record can affect job, immigration, licensing and even housing opportunities. In this section, we offer solutions for clearing up your prior record.

• Certificates of Rehabilitation
• Destroy Arrest records
• Early Termination of Probation
• Expungements

24/7 Help: (855) 999-7755

Please note: Our firm only handles criminal and DUI cases, and only in California. We do not handle any of the following cases:

• civil matters
• CCWs or gun right restoration
• immigration
• landlord/tenant
• restraining orders

And we do not handle any cases outside of California.

Get Quick Legal Help...

This form is encrypted and protected by attorney-client confidentiality.

California’s Domestic Violence Laws – A Quick Legal Guide

California domestic violence laws make it a crime to harm (or threaten to harm) your current or former:

• cohabitant,
• co-parent, or
• dating or intimate partner.

Two of the most common domestic violence crimes are for:

• Penal Code 243(e)(1) “domestic battery” (a misdemeanor) or
• Penal Code 273.5, “inflicting corporal injury on an intimate partner” (a felony or a misdemeanor)

Penalties for domestic violence in California

• Batterer’s intervention program ( domestic violence classes ),
• Fines and/or victim restitution ,
• A restraining order (also known as a protective order),
• Loss of custody rights,
• Loss of California gun rights ,
• A criminal record, and
• Deportation or inadmissibility to the U.S. for non-citizens .

Most of these consequences apply even if you are sentenced to:

• “Summary” (misdemeanor) probation , or
• “Formal” (felony) probation .

Defenses to domestic violence charges in California

• It was an accident ;
• You did not cause the injuries;
• You acted in self-defense or defense of another person ; or
• The victim falsely accused you of domestic violence .

Sometimes we can convince the district attorney not to pursue a criminal case at all. Or we may be able to negotiate a plea bargain to a lesser charge where you get treatment instead of jail.

In this article, our California criminal defense lawyers  will discuss:

1. What is the legal definition of “domestic violence” in California?

• 2.1. For purposes of California’s criminal domestic violence laws
• 2.2 For purposes of custody disputes

3.1. Penal Code 273.5, corporal injury to a spouse or inhabitant

3.2. penal code 243(e)(1), domestic battery, 3.3. penal code 273d, child abuse, 3.4. penal code 273a, child endangerment, 3.5. penal code 270, child neglect/failure to provide care, 3.6. penal code 368, elder abuse, 3.7. penal code 422, criminal threats, 3.8. penal code 646.9, stalking, 3.9. penal code 591, damaging a telephone line, 3.10. penal code 601, aggravated trespass, 3.11. penal code 647(j)(4), revenge porn, 3.12. penal code 653.2, posting harmful information on the internet, 4. is domestic abuse a felony, 5. when can a defendant in a domestic violence case receive probation instead of jail time, 6.1. mandatory minimum jail time, 6.2. payment of victim restitution & domestic violence fund, 6.3. participation in a “batterers’ program”, 6.4. permanent criminal record, 6.5. loss of custody rights, 6.6.1. after a misdemeanor conviction.

• 6.6.2. After a felony conviction

6.6.3. Can a pardon or expungement restore gun rights after a domestic violence conviction?

6.7. restraining orders, 6.8. immigration consequences, 7.1. legal defense strategies, 7.2. plea bargains to lesser charges, 7.3. pre-trial diversion, 8. how can a california domestic violence lawyer help, 9. what are resources for domestic violence victims.

Common California domestic violence offenses include Penal Code 273.5, corporal injury on a spouse, and Penal Code 243(e)(1), domestic battery.

California Penal Code 13700 defines “ domestic violence ” as abuse committed against an intimate partner. 1   You commit “abuse” when you intentionally or recklessly use, or threaten the use of, physical force against an intimate partner. 2

2. Who counts as a victim?

2.1. for purposes of criminal law.

California law defines “domestic violence” as abuse against an “intimate partner.” An “ intimate partner ” is defined as:

• A current or former spouse,
• A current or former registered domestic partner, 3
• A current or former fiancé(e),
• A current or former live-in romantic partner (a “cohabitant”), 4
• A person with whom you have, or have had, a child, or
• Someone you are seriously dating or were in a dating relationship with in the past. 5

2.2. For purposes of custody disputes

The California Family Code has a longer list of people who can be considered victims of domestic violence . In addition to partners in an intimate relationship, victims can include:

• Your child, 6 or
• Brothers and sisters,
• Half-brothers and half-sisters,
• Step-brothers and step-sisters,
• Grandparents,
• Grandchildren,
• Aunts and uncles, and
• Nephews and nieces. 7

These additional categories are important for purposes of California custody laws , discussed in Section 5.5, below.

3. What are the common domestic violence crimes and penalties?

Common crimes of “ domestic violence ” in California include

• threats, and

Some of these offenses are misdemeanors . Others are felonies .

Though most  of these crimes are California “wobbler” offenses . A “ wobbler ” is a crime that can be charged as either a misdemeanor or a felony, depending on:

• The circumstances of the offense,
• The seriousness of the alleged victim’s injuries (if any), and
• Your criminal record (if any). 8

(For more discussion, see our page on Is domestic violence a felony? )

Some of the most common crimes of domestic violence are discussed in brief, below. For more information on each of these offenses, please click on the highlighted link(s).

Penal Code 273.5 makes it illegal to inflict a “ corporal injury ” that results in even a slight physical injury to an intimate partner.

PC 273.5 is a felony . Possible penalties for a first offense range from one (1) year in county jail to up to four (4) years in California state prison and/or up to $10,000 in fines.

Penal Code 243(e)(1) – California’s domestic battery law — makes it a misdemeanor to inflict force or physical violence on an intimate partner. Unlike Penal Code 273.5, this California domestic violence law does not require a visible injury .

Domestic battery is a misdemeanor . Punishment can include a

• fine of up to $2,000, and/or
• up to one (1) year in county jail.

If domestic battery causes a serious injury, it becomes a felony. Under Penal Code 672, this carries up to four (4) years in state prison and/or up to $10,000 in fines.

Penal Code 273d PC California’s “child abuse” law , makes it a crime to inflict corporal punishment or injury on a child. Reasonable spankings are excluded, but any punishment that is cruel or causes injury is considered child abuse in California.

Child abuse resulting in a traumatic condition carries (without a sentencing enhancement):

• up to six (6) years in state prison and/or
• up to $6,000 in fines

Hitting a child with a hanger is not a “reasonable spanking” under California’s child abuse laws.

Penal Code 273a PC California’s child endangerment law , makes it a crime to willfully cause or allow a child in your care to:

• suffer harm, or
• have their safety or health endangered.
• A mother who permits her boyfriend to beat her 6-year-old, or
• A parent who operates a dangerous meth lab in the same home where their child lives.

If the child is at risk of great bodily injury , the crime is a “ wobbler .” The felony penalties include up to six (6) years in prison and/or up to $10,000 in fines. The misdemeanor penalties are up to 1 year in jail and/or up to $1,000 in fines. 9

If the child is not at risk of great bodily harm, child endangerment is a misdemeanor , punishable by up to six (6) months in jail and/or up to $1,000 in fines.

California’s “child neglect” law, Penal Code 270 PC , makes it a crime for a parent to willfully fail to provide necessities (like food, shelter, medical care, clothing, etc.) to their minor child.

Child neglect is usually a misdemeanor . It can be punished by

• a fine of up to $2,000 and/or

Child neglect can be a felony in cases where a parent refuses to provide care after a court declares them a parent. Penalties can be:

• one (1) year plus one (1) day in state prison and/or
• a fine of up to $2,000.

Penal Code 368 PC, California’s law on elder abuse , makes it a “ wobbler ” to inflict any of the following on a victim 65 years of age or older:

• Physical abuse,
• Emotional abuse,
• Endangerment, or
• Financial fraud.

As a misdemeanor , elder abuse can be punished by up to one (1) year in jail. As a domestic violence felony , elder abuse penalties can include up to four (4) years in state prison and/or $10,000 in fines.

Inflicting abuse on a senior citizen is a California crime of domestic violence that can affect custody rights.

California’s “criminal threats” law, Penal Code 422 PC , makes it a crime to threaten someone with serious harm. PC 422 may be charged as a

• a misdemeanor or

As a misdemeanor, criminal threats can be punished by up to one (1) year in jail.

As a domestic violence felony , potential penalties can include up to four (4) years in prison and/or up to $10,000 in fines (plus a possible one (1) year enhancement). Also, a felony conviction is a serious felony that counts as a strike under California’s “Three Strikes” law per Penal Code 1192.7: Accruing three strikes carries at least twenty-five (25) years in prison.

Penal Code 646.9, California’s “stalking” law , prohibits :

• Harassing or threatening another person,
• To the point at which the person fears for their safety or the safety of their family members.

Stalking can be a misdemeanor or a felony, depending on your criminal history .

Misdemeanor stalking can be punished by up to one (1) year in jail. As a felony , stalking penalties can include up to five (5) years in prison and/or $10,000 in fines.

Penal Code 591 PC is California’s law on damaging a telephone line . It makes it a crime to maliciously cut or otherwise damage a phone line or phone equipment. An example is a domestic abuser who prevents their victim from making a phone call.

PC 591 can be charged as a misdemeanor or a felony. If charged as a felony , penalties can include

• a fine of up to $10,000 and/or
• up to three (3) years in prison.

You commit Penal Code 601 PC “ aggravated trespass ” when you:

• Make a criminal threat, and
• Within the next 30 days enter that person’s home or workplace to carry it out.

Aggravated trespass can be either

Punishment for a felony violation can include up to three (3) years in jail and/or $2,000 in fines.

The misdemeanor crime of “revenge porn” — PC 647(j)(4) — is a type of “cyber-harassment.” It occurs when you:

• Intentionally distribute sexual photos of another person (such as an ex-girlfriend or ex-wife),
• With the intent to cause that person emotional distress.

Revenge porn can be punished by

• a fine of up to $1,000 (or $2,000 for subsequent offenses) and

PC 653.2 – posting harmful info on the internet – is a relatively new misdemeanor offense. Also known as “ indirect electronic harassment ” or “cyber-stalking,” it consists of:

• Posting or emailing harmful information about someone,
• With the intent of causing other people to harass that person.

PC 653.2 is often charged when someone uses the internet to get revenge on the other party in a domestic dispute.

It can be punished by

• a fine of up to $1,000 and/or
• up to one (1) year in jail.

One type of domestic abuse is always a felony in California: Corporal injury to a spouse or inhabitant (PC 273.5).

The following domestic abuse-related offenses can be felonies or misdemeanors depending on the case. These “ wobbler ” offenses include:

• Child abuse (PC 273d)
• Child endangerment (PC 273a)
• Elder abuse (PC 368)
• Criminal threats (PC 422)
• Stalking (PC 646.9)
• Damaging a phone line (PC 591)
• Aggravated trespass (PC 601)

Scroll up to the previous section for specific penalties for these crimes.

A judge may be willing to sentence you to probation for domestic violence if:

• It is your first offense, or
• The victim’s injuries are not significant.

Probation is more likely when the case is prosecuted as a misdemeanor . This is because felony domestic violence charges are typically brought only when the victim suffers a significant injury .

Even if the judge sentences you to probation , many of the consequences listed below will still apply.

However, you will be sentenced to a minimum of jail time. In exchange, you will be subject to conditions , such as the ones set forth in Section 6, below.

If you violate any probation conditions , the judge can revoke probation and send you to prison or jail .

6. What are additional consequences of a California domestic violence conviction?

A conviction for battery or abuse often results in more than just incarceration and a fine. Additional consequences of a California domestic violence conviction can include some or all of the following:

Most California counties impose a minimum jail sentence of 30 days for a domestic violence conviction. This is true even if the domestic violence charge is a misdemeanor and it is your first offense.

If you are convicted of domestic violence, you may be ordered to pay victim “ restitution ” in California. Such restitution can include the victim’s:

• Medical bills,
• Mental health/psychiatric/psychological counseling,
• Lost wages, and/or
• Property damage.

You will also have to pay $500 to fund domestic violence programs in California. 10

If you are convicted of domestic violence, judges will almost always require you to attend a year-long treatment and counseling program. 11

This is true even if you are sentenced to

• “summary” (misdemeanor) probation or
• “formal” (felony) probation

in lieu of all or part of your sentence.

Perhaps worst of all is that a  DV conviction goes on your permanent criminal record.

The conviction will appear anytime someone does a routine background check . This can make it difficult to gain

• employment,
• state licensing,
• other benefits.

Domestic abusers are usually prohibited from getting custody of their minor children in California. However, they are still often able to obtain visitation rights .

Note that for purposes of determining custody, a criminal conviction is not required for a family law judge to determine there was domestic violence.

However, a judge will definitely decide there was domestic violence if one parent was convicted of a crime of domestic violence against the other parent within the previous five years. See Family Code Section 3044 .

Consequences of a California domestic violence conviction can include a loss of custody rights.

6.6. Loss of gun rights

A California domestic violence conviction will almost always result in a loss of the right to own or possess a firearm .

Unfortunately, for the reasons set forth below, there is no way to recover lost gun rights after a domestic violence conviction .

Note that under Assembly Bill 818 , police must temporarily confiscate any guns:

• at the scene of a domestic violence incident involving a threat to human life or a physical assault, or
• when serving you with a domestic violence restraining order.

Under California Penal Code 29805 , most misdemeanor DV convictions result in a ten-year firearms ban. A misdemeanor conviction of violating Penal Code 273.5 PC (corporal injury on a spouse or cohabitant) will carry a lifetime loss of gun rights. See California AB 3129 . 12

However, if the offense qualifies as a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence (“MCDV”) under federal law, a conviction will result in a firearm ban for life . 13

6.6.2. After a felony domestic violence conviction

Penal Code 29800 PC is California’s “ felon with a firearm ” law . It imposes a lifetime firearms ban on people who have been convicted of a felony offense in any

So if you are convicted of DV as a felony , both California and federal law prohibit you from ever legally possessing a gun. 14

Federal law imposes a lifetime firearms ban after a domestic violence conviction. 15   The only way to remove the federal firearms ban is with a Presidential pardon . Though such pardons are seldom granted.

To learn how to apply for a presidential pardon, please see the United States Department of Justice pardon information and instructions .

California law allows a victim of domestic violence to apply for an emergency restraining order (also known as an “emergency protective order”). 16

A DV restraining order can be obtained in either civil or criminal court.

No physical harm is required for a protective order.

An alleged victim does not need to have suffered physical harm in order to obtain a protective order against you in California.

The person filing the petition simply needs to prove that:

• You abused or threatened to abuse the petitioner or the petitioner’s minor child, and
• You are an intimate partner or a first- or second-degree relative. 17

Violation of a protective or restraining order

California law makes it a crime to violate a restraining order. 18

Violation of a protective order is usually a misdemeanor as long as the victim was not hurt.

Common defenses to a charge of violating a protective order include taking the position that:

• The protective order was not legally issued;
• You did not know about the restraining order;
• You did not intentionally violate the order; or
• You were falsely accused.

Many California domestic violence convictions count as an “aggravated felony” or a “crime involving moral turpitude” (“CIMV”) under U.S. immigration law .

Conviction on these charges can subject a non-U.S. citizen to:

• Removal (deportation) from the United States , 19 and/or
• Inadmissibility to the United States — including ineligibility to apply for a green card or an adjustment of status (from illegal to legal) . 20

So before pleading guilty, it is critical that a non-citizen consult with a knowledgeable California domestic violence lawyer .

An experienced California criminal attorney may be able to negotiate a plea bargain that avoids the negative immigration consequences of a domestic violence conviction.

Arguments in front of children can sometimes lead to false accusations of domestic violence, with devastating consequences.

7. How do I fight California domestic violence charges?

Here at Shouse Law Group, we have represented literally thousands of people accused of domestic violence . In our experience, the following four defenses are very effective with prosecutors, judges, and juries.

• The other person’s injury was the result of an accident;
• The alleged victim’s injuries did not result from your actions;
• You were acting in self-defense or defense of someone else; or
• Anger or jealousy,
• An attempt to gain the upper hand in divorce or child custody proceedings, or
• Any other reason.

In all of these cases, we would rely on such evidence as eyewitness accounts, surveillance video, and medical records. An expert forensic witness may be able to testify that the accuser’s injuries were self-inflicted or the result of an accident.

We can often negotiate a plea bargain to a lesser offense. This will help you avoid the stigma and negative consequences of a domestic violence conviction .

Two of the most common lesser offenses you may be able to plead to are:

• Penal Code 602 PC criminal trespass , or
• Penal Code 415 PC disturbing the peace .

Advantages of pleading to one of these crimes can include:

• Retention of the right to own a firearm,
• No automatic loss of custody rights, and
• No deportation or inadmissibility for non-citizens.

Another legal strategy we often pursue is to try to get a pre-trial diversion program or deferred entry of judgment (“DEJ”) for you.

With pretrial diversion, if you successfully complete a batterers’ program, the charges will be dismissed and cease to exist for most purposes.

Eligibility for pretrial diversion depends on:

• The specific charges,
• Where you reside, and
• Your criminal history (if any).

California law enforcement agencies take claims of DV quite seriously.

If you are accused of domestic violence for allegedly hitting or threatening a spouse or child, you may find yourself cut off from family and unable even to go home.

Our criminal defense lawyers include former

• police officers and
• prosecutors.

We have decades of experience investigating and trying cases of alleged abuse.

We understand how judges decide when to issue a domestic violence restraining order and what punishment is merited.

When we get involved early in a case we can often persuade the prosecutor not to file domestic violence charges. Or we can negotiate a plea bargain that allows you to avoid the negative consequences of a domestic abuse conviction.

If your case does go to jury trial we will make sure your side of the story is presented. Contrary to what you may have heard, it is possible to win a domestic violence case .

If you or someone you know is in immediate danger, call 911. Otherwise, you can find help, information and advocacy in the following places:

• Domestic Violence Organizations in California – California Partnership to End Domestic Violence
• California Domestic Violence Help, Programs and Statistics – DomesticShelters.org
• State Resources: California – WomensLaw.org
• Domestic violence in California: Resources for survivors, advocates, and allies – Blue Shield of California Foundation
• Getting Help – California Courts
• National Domestic Violence Hotline
• Resources – National Coalition Against Domestic Violence (NCADV)
• Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network (RAINN)
• File a Police Report in Los Angeles (LAPD)

Legal References

“Domestic violence” means abuse committed against an adult or a minor who is a spouse, former spouse, cohabitant, former cohabitant, or person with whom the suspect has had a child or is having or has had a dating or engagement relationship. For purposes of this subdivision, “cohabitant” means two unrelated adult persons living together for a substantial period of time, resulting in some permanency of relationship. Factors that may determine whether persons are cohabiting include, but are not limited to, (1) sexual relations between the parties while sharing the same living quarters, (2) sharing of income or expenses, (3) joint use or ownership of property, (4) whether the parties hold themselves out as spouses, (5) the continuity of the relationship, and (6) the length of the relationship.

See also PC 13730 . See, for example, People v. Cabrera (Court of Appeal of California, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, 2007) 152 Cal. App. 4th 695 ; People v. James (Court of Appeal of California, Fifth Appellate District, 2010) 191 Cal. App. 4th 478 ; People v. Gobert ( Court of Appeal of California, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, 2023) 89 Cal. App. 5th 676 .

• Penal Code 13700(a) “Abuse” means intentionally or recklessly causing or attempting to cause bodily injury, or placing another person in reasonable apprehension of imminent serious bodily injury to himself or herself, or another. See also People v. Hoover (Court of Appeal of California, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two, 2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 1020 ; People v. Truong (Court of Appeal of California, First Appellate District, Division Two, 2001) 90 Cal. App. 4th 887 .

“Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules, government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources of law, as are granted to and imposed upon spouses.”

• California Penal Code 13700(b), endnote 1.
• Family Code 6211 (e).
• Family Code 6211(f).
• Penal Code 17 (b) PC.
• Penal Code 273a (a). See also People v. Rodriquez ( Court of Appeal of California, First Appellate District, Division Four, 2022) 79 Cal. App. 5th 637 .
• Penal Code 1203.097 (5). See also Welfare and Institutions Code 18304 .
• Penal Code 1203.097(6).
• Such crimes include PC 273.5 PC, corporal injury; PC 243(e)(1), domestic battery; PC 243.4, sexual battery; PC 422, criminal threats; PC 646.9, stalking; and PC 273.6, violation of a protective order.
• 18 USC 922 (g).
• See, for example, California Code of Civil Procedure 527.6 CCP. See also People v. Jungers (Court of Appeal of California, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, 2005) 127 Cal. App. 4th 698 .
• California Penal Code section 273.6 PC .
• Immigration & Nationality Act (“INA”) 237 (a)(2)(A)(I), codified at 8 USC 1227 (a)(2)(A)(I).
• INA 212 (a)(2)(A)(i)(I), 8 USC 1182 (a)(2)(A)(i)(I).

Contact Our Firm

• (855) 999-7755

• Criminal Court
• Directions and Parking
• Security & Weapons Screening
• Court Building Directory
• Find Your Courtroom
• Court Rules & Expectations
• Obtaining a Public Defender
• Representing Yourself in Court
• Policy On Immigration Arrests
• Frequently Asked Questions
• Ticket Response Options
• My Ticket Information
• Pay at Customer Service Center
• Collections Information
• Parking and Traffic Ticket Debt Reduction Hearings for Low-Income People
• Payment Plan Application
• Community Service Plan
• Unified Payment Program
• Hearings By Mail
• Attending Your Scheduled Ticket Hearing
• Reschedule a Hearing
• Scofflaw FAQ
• Check For Unpaid Tickets
• My Car Got Towed
• Vehicle Registration Tabs
• Bought and Sold Vehicles
• Camera Tickets
• Stolen Identity
• Received a Jury Summons - Now What?
• Responding to a Jury Summons
• How a Jury is Chosen
• Order of Events in a Trial
• Jury Duty FAQ
• Violations Information
• Case Information and Records
• Court Forms
• Civil Cases
• Proposed Court Rules for Public Comment
• Conflict Attorney Panel (CAP)
• En Banc Rulings
• Community Resource Center Calendar
• CRC Services
• Community Resource Center Volunteers
• Pretrial Services
• Probation Evolution
• Electronic Monitoring
• Assigned Probation: What To Expect
• Probation Volunteer Opportunities
• Domestic Violence Victim Resources
• What Happens in Cases of Domestic Violence
• DV No Contact Order FAQs
• Mental Health Court
• Seattle Veterans Treatment Court
• Seattle Youth Traffic Court
• For SMC Interpreters
• For The Public
• Interpreter Request Form
• Marriage Ceremony FAQs
• Marriage Ceremony Request
• Public Records Requests
• Procedures For Vacating a Conviction
• Resolving a Warrant
• How the Court Can Help You
• News and Blog
• FAQs for Applicants
• Court Holidays
• Jail Locations and Visitation
• Honorable Faye Chess
• Honorable Andrea Chin
• Honorable Anita Crawford-Willis
• Honorable Willie Gregory
• Honorable Catherine McDowall
• Honorable Damon Shadid
• Honorable Pooja Vaddadi
• Seattle Municipal Court Magistrates
• Seattle Municipal Court Marshals & Security
• SMC in the Community
• Top 10 Criminal Charges
• Criminal Case Filings
• Court Hearing Volume
• Vehicle Infractions
• Traffic Camera Infractions
• Civility Charges
• Bicycle Infractions
• Marijuana Infractions
• Probation Caseload, Status, and Length of Time
• Probation Reporting Level
• Probation Activity and Compliance
• Probation Outcomes: Revocations and Hearings
• Domestic Violence Court Data Reports
• Community Court Data Reports
• Mental Health Court & Veterans Treatment Court Data Reports
• Electronic Home Monitoring (EHM)
• Key Performance Indicators
• Court User Survey Results
• Community Resource Center Data

• International edition
• Australia edition
• Europe edition

Domestic violence victims are often criminalized. A California bill wants to change that

Many say the bill would help survivors be heard, broadening the range of people able to petition to see their sentence reviewed

I n 1995, on the day before Kelly Savage-Rodriguez planned to flee her abusive husband, she ran some final errands while her children, ages three and one, napped. She hoped to take them on the early morning Amtrak from Porterville, California , to Los Angeles and stay with her brother, but when she returned, she said, she found that her husband had beaten and killed her three-year-old son, Justin. She called 911. The police arrested her along with her husband.

Savage-Rodriguez was jailed as she awaited trial, and said her lawyer did not have training in advocating for clients who suffered domestic violence. The judge used her history of abuse against her, she said, and said she was equally at fault for her son’s death under California’s “ failure to protect ” charges that can criminalize the non-abusive parent in a domestic violence case because she had not fled. She was later convicted and sentenced to life without parole, same as her abuser.

In the United States, survivors who are criminally charged often do not have their history of abuse taken into account during court to help judges and juries understand the circumstances, and they can face scrutiny or disbelief when they do share their stories.

“It didn’t matter what I did or didn’t do, it didn’t matter how much I was trying,” said Savage-Rodriguez, who was released in 2018 following a pardon and is now a coordinator for California Coalition for Women Prisoners. “None of it mattered. They wanted a conviction and that’s all that they were concerned with.”

Across the country, advocates are pushing for sentencing reforms that would provide a more trauma-informed approach to survivors of domestic violence and human trafficking. In the past five years, lawmakers in New York, Louisiana, Georgia, Virginia and Wyoming have passed legislation to vacate the sentences of survivors.

Now, organizers in California, where Savage-Rodriguez is from and where many other survivors are still incarcerated, are mobilizing for sentencing reform. Since 2021, the state already mandates courts to consider the experiences of survivors who have been convicted of non-violent crime. But a new bill championed by assembly member Mia Bonta – AB2354, the Justice for Survivors act – would go much further, allowing all abuse survivors to petition the court to vacate their arrests, convictions or adjudications, and also order law enforcement and courts to seal records related to the arrest and offense.

D omestic violence is estimated to impact up to 10 million people in the US, and as many as one in four women and one in nine men. Among the prison population, the rate is even higher. According to the Felony Murder Elimination Project , up to 90% of people incarcerated in US women’s prisons report having experienced emotional, physical, and/or sexual abuse. This doesn’t just pertain to adult women – 84% of girls in juvenile detention have experienced family violence.

Domestic abuse and human trafficking survivors are particularly vulnerable to falling into the criminal justice system. They might face various hurdles to leave the violent situation, such as risks of losing financial or housing security, or experience victim-blaming. Additionally, law enforcement and courts are often ill-equipped to meet survivors’ victimization and may not perceive that their actions might be based on a history of abuse rather than an immediate physical altercation.

“Nobody wins because we want justice for the victim and at the same time, the survivor [of abuse] is also a victim,” said Ny Nourn. Nourn was sentenced to life without parole when she was 21 , for her witness of a murder committed by her abusive boyfriend. “The focus should be about healing by ways of holding people who have done harm accountable, and criminalization or incarceration is not the answer.”

Growing up in San Diego, California, seeking love and validation after witnessing her mother abused by her stepfather, Nourn got into a relationship with a man twice her age, she said. She had a one-night stand with the supervisor at her job while she was a high school senior, and when her boyfriend found out, he beat and raped her, she recalled. He then killed her supervisor, in front of her, and threatened to kill her family if she told anyone, she said.

Nourn kept the secret to herself. But two years later, she confided in two co-workers, telling them about her rape and the murder of her supervisor, she said. They encouraged her to talk to the police.

Nourn was arrested and charged with first-degree murder of the supervisor following a 10-hour interrogation, she said. She went to trial with her abuser as her co-defendant. Her defense attorney knew about the history of abuse, but told her it didn’t matter, she recalled.

“A judge said I was responsible for my abuser’s behavior,” Nourn said. “I couldn’t control him. Yet I was responsible for his actions.”

Nourn and her abuser were both sentenced to life. She was sent to the Central California Women’s Facility – the largest women’s prison in the world. There she started attending a support group for intimate partner violence, where she met many other women who shared similar experiences.

Nearly four years into her sentence, Nourn filed a habeas writ that resulted in her life sentence being vacated and was granted a second trial, during which the court decided her defense attorney was ineffective counsel because he failed to present evidence of intimate partner violence. Nourn’s sentence was commuted to 15 years, and she was released in 2017. Three years later, she was pardoned by the California governor , and she now serves as co-executive director of the Asian Prisoner Support Committee, an organization that provides support for Asians and Pacific Islanders who are incarcerated, and a volunteer member of Survived and Punished, which supports criminalized survivors.

“It’s important to give survivors a voice,” Nourn said. “I think it starts with individuals, a community of people that have power to really broaden or expand this bill. That’s my hope.”

C alifornia’s new bill will broaden the range of domestic violence survivors able to petition to see their sentence reviewed, said Darya Larizadeh, a senior policy attorney at the National Center for Youth Law who has been working on the bill with the Justice for Survivors Coalition.

“We really want to bring California to be in line with other states that are already seeing this as a priority and doing much better to support survivors,” said Larizadeh.

The bill would also prevent survivors who have an immigration hold from being transferred to Immigration Customers and Customs Enforcement (IceCE) and deported. It also The bill helps survivors to clear their record, which might otherwise cause adverse consequences , such as trouble finding employment or housing.

With no federal pathway providing relief to survivors, they are left to work with the laws in place in their individual states. While there were only five states that did not offer some kind of relief to survivors as of spring 2023, most of the legislation only applied to prostitution and human trafficking victims, did not apply to domestic violence survivors and had narrow scope of eligibility such as only applying to minors or not including retroactivity.

Larizadeh also said that she had heard from public defenders across California that the original Justice for Survivors Act passed in 2020 had had an impact providing relief to some survivors, and she hoped that this bill would expand the relief to all incarcerated survivors of violence.

“Survivors need some kind of relief, some kind of acknowledgment to what they’ve also gone through,” said Susan Bustamante, a volunteer with Survived and Punished and member of the California Coalition for Women Prisoners. “People’s voices need to be heard.”

Bustamante is a re-entry coach at Home Free , a transitional housing program that helps domestic violence survivors and other women who have experienced trauma reenter communities after being released from prison. She is a survivor herself.

Her husband abused her for six years until she confided in her brother, who promised to take care of it, she said. In 1987, on the day before she turned 25, Bustamante’s brother killed her husband. Her brother died before the trial, and Bustamante was blamed for her husband’s death, she said. She was sentenced to life.

“It was really, really heartbreaking. You have no hope,” Bustamante, 68, said.

As a re-entry coach, Bustamante helps incarcerated survivors prepare for their parole board hearings, hosts domestic violence events at the prisons and supports them on their needs following release. She hoped the bill would help survivors be seen and acknowledged.

“It’s such an important cause,” Bustamante said. “They just are so busy trying to lock people up, they’re not hearing them, because if they heard them, they wouldn’t get these harsh sentences.”

This story is a part of the Justice Reporting Project, an initiative of the University of Southern California’s Annenberg Media Center.

Victoria Valenzuela is an investigative reporter based in California, covering issues in criminal justice. She currently helps oversee the criminal justice coverage as a reporter at ScheerPost. She has previously contributed to BuzzFeed News and LA Taco, and interned with the Marshall Project and the National Association of Hispanic Journalists. She was also an emerging reporter fellow with ProPublica and a member of the Law and Justice Project’s inaugural cohort. She is completing graduate studies at the University of Southern California

• Domestic violence
• Violence against women and girls

Most viewed

Domestic violence advocates and legal experts back change to NSW bail laws to protect lives after Molly Ticehurst's alleged murder

Police prosecutors are unable to immediately challenge dangerous bail decisions in New South Wales because violence against women is not considered a "serious" crime under bail review laws.

Domestic violence advocates and legal experts are calling for urgent changes to the law to protect women like Molly Ticehurst, who was allegedly murdered by her ex-boyfriend Daniel Billings last month.

Two weeks before she was killed, a police prosecutor stood before a registrar in Dubbo Local Court and urged them not to grant Mr Billings bail after he was charged with several violent offences against Ms Ticehurst, including three counts of sexual assault.

According to court documents, the prosecutor told the court on April 6, that Mr Billings's alleged behaviour was "indicative of features in domestic violence offenders that we see often come to light after the most disturbing conclusions to their conduct".

"That is an inability to let go of the relationship, a feeling of possessiveness and jealousness over the woman … repeated threats in relation to, you know, her not being with someone else," he told the court.

But when the registrar granted him bail anyway, the law prevented the prosecutor from immediately lodging a stay of release, which would require Mr Billings to remain in custody until the decision could be reviewed by a higher court.

Under the NSW Bail Act, a stay of release can only be made for a "serious offence", which includes murder, sexual offences against children and any offence that carries a sentence of life of imprisonment.

It does not include sexual assault offences against adults or any other form of assault.

Rights of offenders 'prioritised' over victims

Full Stop Australia CEO Karen Bevan said the law needed to be altered to better protect victims of sexual, domestic and family violence.

"This really is very specific change that could happen… and maybe one day this could save another woman's life," Ms Bevan said.

"The way the bail act is structured does not make rape and sexual assault the kind of offence that sets that barrier very high for bail.

"While we don't believe we can solve sexual domestic and family violence with bail reform, we do think there are ways to tighten up the bail regime."

Domestic Violence NSW chief executive Delia Donovan said her organisation also wanted to "see those bail reforms put in place right away".

"We absolutely believe that expanding those bail laws is fundamental right now in ensuring that police prosecutors can also be involved in ensuring the rights and safety of victim survivors," Ms Donovan said.

"We know that currently the criminal justice system is prioritising the rights of offenders."

The state government has already flagged a major review of the state's bail laws in response to Molly Ticehurst's alleged murder and has sought advice from Crown Advocate, David Kell SC.

Ms Bevan said while the law reform was needed urgently, it also needed to be "measured and sensible".

"These sorts of things can only be done well if they're done with the right expertise and with the really clear outcome that we're all seeking, which is the protection of, primarily women, but people who have been subject to sexual, domestic and family violence," she said

Justice system has a long way to go, former magistrate says

Former NSW local court magistrate David Heilpern, who is now dean of law at Southern Cross University, said Ms Ticehurst's case was "an example" of when a stay of release "needs to be applied in domestic violence cases".

Mr Heilpern said the justice system "has a long way to catch up" when it comes to domestic violence.

"Certainly I think it's one area where it could be amended where a registrar makes a decision that the police fear leaves somebody vulnerable to violence that they could immediately ask for a stay, get it before the court within 24 hours and a further decision can be looked at," Mr Heilpern said.

Attorney-General Michael Daley has declined repeated requests from ABC News to be interviewed about domestic violence in the justice system.

Instead, his office sent a statement this week from a government spokesperson saying it had "sought urgent legal advice" which would "assist the Government as it considers whether reform is needed to the state's bail laws".

Deputy Premier Prue Car paid tribute to Ms Ticehurst on Thursday, as her family and friends commemorate her life at a private funeral in Forbes today.

"This has shocked the nation, the state and most definitely sent shock waves through the community of Forbes," she said.

"We have an emergency cabinet meeting tomorrow where everything is on the table for discussion but we pay tribute to Molly and her life, taken to early, and we pledge to do more in her honour."

• X (formerly Twitter)

Related Stories

Family and friends of molly ticehurst call for 'molly's law' to better protect people from domestic violence.

How long will women be marching in the street asking not to be murdered?

'Beggars belief': Molly Ticehurst's death exposes gaps in justice system, former magistrate says

• Courts and Trials
• Domestic Violence

• Find a Lawyer
• Ask a Lawyer
• Research the Law
• Law Schools
• Laws & Regs
• Newsletters
• Justia Connect
• Pro Membership
• Basic Membership
• Justia Lawyer Directory
• Platinum Placements
• Gold Placements
• Justia Elevate
• Justia Amplify
• PPC Management
• Google Business Profile
• Social Media
• Justia Onward Blog

USA V. DUARTE, No. 22-50048 (9th Cir. 2024)

The case involves Steven Duarte, who was convicted for violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), a law that prohibits anyone previously convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for over a year from possessing a firearm. Duarte, who had five prior non-violent state criminal convictions, was charged and convicted under this law after police saw him discard a handgun from a moving car. Duarte appealed his conviction, arguing that § 922(g)(1) violated his Second Amendment rights. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit agreed with Duarte, finding that the law was unconstitutional as applied to him, a non-violent offender who had served his time in prison and reentered society. The court held that under the Supreme Court's decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Bruen, § 922(g)(1) violated the Second Amendment as applied to Duarte. The court concluded that Duarte's weapon, a handgun, is an "arm" within the meaning of the Second Amendment, and that the government failed to prove that § 922(g)(1)'s categorical prohibition, as applied to Duarte, is part of the historic tradition that delimits the outer bounds of the Second Amendment right. As a result, the court vacated Duarte's conviction and reversed the district court's judgment.

Court Description: Criminal Law/Second Amendment. Reversing the district court’s judgment, the panel vacated Steven Duarte’s conviction for violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), which makes it a crime for any person to possess a firearm if he has been convicted of an offense punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year. On appeal, Duarte challenged his conviction on Second Amendment grounds, which the panel reviewed de novo rather than for plain error because Duarte had good cause for not raising the claim in the district court when United States v. Vongxay, 594 F.3d 1111 (9th Cir. 2010), foreclosed the argument. The panel held that under New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), § 922(g)(1) violates the Second Amendment as applied to Duarte, a non-violent offender who has served his time in prison and reentered society; and that Vongxay, which did not apply the mode of analysis that Bruen later established and now requires courts to perform, is clearly irreconcilable with Bruen. Applying Bruen’s two-step, text-and-history framework, the panel concluded (1) Duarte’s weapon, a handgun, is an “arm” within the meaning of the Second Amendment’s text, that Duarte’s “proposed course of conduct—carrying [a] handgun[] publicly for self-defense”—falls within the Second Amendment’s plain language, and that Duarte is part of “the people” whom the Second Amendment protects because he is an American citizen; and (2) the Government failed to prove that § 922(g)(1)’s categorical prohibition, as applied to Duarte, “is part of the historic tradition that delimits the outer bounds of the” Second Amendment right. Judge M. Smith dissented. He wrote that until an intervening higher authority that is clearly irreconcilable with Vongxay is handed down, a three-judge panel is bound by that decision. He wrote that Bruen, which did not overrule Vongxay, reiterates that the Second Amendment right belongs only to law-abiding citizens; and that Duarte’s Second Amendment challenge to § 922(g)(1), as applied to nonviolent offenders, is therefore foreclosed.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

Get free summaries of new Ninth Circuit US Court of Appeals opinions delivered to your inbox!

• Bankruptcy Lawyers
• Business Lawyers
• Criminal Lawyers
• Employment Lawyers
• Estate Planning Lawyers
• Family Lawyers
• Personal Injury Lawyers
• Estate Planning
• Personal Injury
• Business Formation
• Business Operations
• Intellectual Property
• International Trade
• Real Estate
• Financial Aid
• Course Outlines
• Law Journals
• US Constitution
• Regulations
• Supreme Court
• Circuit Courts
• District Courts
• Dockets & Filings
• State Constitutions
• State Codes
• State Case Law
• Legal Blogs
• Business Forms
• Product Recalls
• Justia Connect Membership
• Justia Premium Placements
• Justia Elevate (SEO, Websites)
• Justia Amplify (PPC, GBP)
• Testimonials

Supreme Court should uphold laws keeping guns away from domestic violence abusers

W e are heartened that the U.S. Supreme Court will weigh in on the controversial case, U.S. v Rahimi , because it could make the lives of those who live under the terror of domestic violence so much safer.

In February of this year, the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals wrote that Zackey Rahimi is “hardly a model citizen.”

The Texas man is a convicted drug dealer with a history of armed violence. His girlfriend filed a restraining order that required him to relinquish his guns.

Start the day smarter. Get all the news you need in your inbox each morning.

However, the judges ruled unanimously that Rahimi should be allowed to get his guns back. With this decision, the Fifth Circuit struck down a lifesaving federal statute prohibiting firearms possession by individuals who a court has determined pose a credible threat to the safety of an intimate partner or child.

That decision stunned those of us who have long worked to protect domestic violence victims.

Another view: Here's how Nashville can move toward a victim-centered justice system

Many domestic violence survivors have been threatened with firearms

Nearly all of the women and children who come to YWCA Nashville & Middle Tennessee’s Weaver Domestic Violence Center have experienced trauma from an abuser with a weapon. The survivors share with us how their abusers tried to keep control by pointing a gun at them, holding the weapon against their bodies, and even turning the gun on themselves, threatening suicide if their victim tries to leave.

Often, children as young as 3 or 4 try to intervene and protect their moms, only to have the gun pointed at them. They come to our shelter carrying emotional scars and nightmares.

In Knoxville, our community is reeling from the recent murder of Knox County Sheriff’s Deputy Tucker Blakely who was responding to a domestic disturbance call.

YWCA Knoxville and Tennessee Valley advocates are available to assist victims with filing orders of protection to provide legally binding safety from abusers. Those found guilty of abuse are required to dispossess any firearms they own, but there is no follow-up to know if the firearms have been relinquished.

Our organization is leading a collaborative effort for firearm dispossession through the Office on Violence Against Women on a local platform. On average, 70 women in the U.S. are shot and killed by an intimate partner each month, and the presence of a gun in a domestic violence situation  makes it five times as likely a woman will be killed.

The Second Amendment is not a suicide pact

We think that allowing abusers to have access to firearms was clearly wrong because the Fifth Circuit did not follow the instructions of an earlier Supreme Court ruling. In the earlier case, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen , the Supreme Court ruled that the government must find historical analogues to serve as examples in creating gun regulations.

The Fifth Circuit struck down the federal law that prohibits abusers from possessing firearms, writing that it could not find an exact historical replica for such a law. We believe that the Fifth Circuit’s misinterpretation of Bruen poses a real threat to real victims, many of whom are women and children. Bruen doesn’t require an exact historical replica, only historical analogues of which plenty of well-grounded examples of gun regulations exist.

The Second Amendment is not unlimited. As the state of California has argued in a Rahimi amicus brief , nor is the Second Amendment a “suicide pact.”

While it protects the right of law-abiding citizens to use arms for self-defense, it does not prevent the government from enacting various gun regulations that have a longstanding historical tradition.

This includes restrictions on gun possession by individuals deemed a credible threat to the safety of an intimate partner or child.

Keeping guns away from abusers protects women

These laws work, and we need to keep them on the books:

• Over half of all intimate partner homicides are committed with guns , and women are five times more likely to be murdered when their abuser has access to a firearm. Laws that reduce abusers’ access to firearms are associated with reductions in intimate partner homicide.
• Abusers use guns to threaten and control their victims, and threats often escalate to lethal violence. Firearms are the most commonly used weapon in all homicides, including intimate partner homicide. Prohibiting firearm access for those with a history of domestic violence has proved effective in reducing rates of intimate partner homicide.
• Women are disproportionately affected by domestic violence and are more likely to be killed by an intimate partner than men. Keeping guns out of the hands of abusers is associated with lower rates of violence against women and intimate partner homicides.

The Rahimi case, which will be argued on Nov. 7,  offers the Supreme Court the opportunity to clarify and strengthen its earlier guidance in Bruen and to reaffirm the need for laws that help keep guns out of the hands of abusers, laws that have long proven to be effective – and consistent with the Second Amendment. We’re confident victims lives will be saved by keeping firearms out of the hands of domestic abusers.

Sharon K. Roberson, Esq, is president and CEO of the YWCA Nashville & Middle Tennessee. Stephanie Burrage is chief executive officer of the YWCA Knoxville & the Tennessee Valley.

This article originally appeared on Nashville Tennessean: Supreme Court should uphold laws keeping guns away from domestic violence abusers

• WEB STORIES New
• ENTERTAINMENT
• CAREER & CAMPUS
• INFOGRAPHICS
• ISL 2023-24

• Manorama Online
• Manorama News TV
• ManoramaMAX
• Radio Mango
• Subscription

Kozhikode youth booked in domestic violence case nearly 8 days after wedding

Kozhikode: Pantheerankkavu police here on Monday registered a domestic violence case against a newlywed youth over the complaint filed by his wife's family. The accused is Rahul, a native of Pantheerankkavu. 

Rahul tied the knot with the woman from Ernakulam on May 5. Manorama News reported that the woman's family noticed bruises on her body when they paid a visit to Rahul's house on Sunday as part of a ceremony. According to police, Rahul used to beat up his wife over suspicion of infidelity. 

After filing the complaint, the woman left with her family announcing her separation with Rahul. She also returned her 'Thali' (mangalsutra) to her husband.

Shahana kept an account of domestic abuse before committing suicide, cops scan model's diary

Estranged wife rejects New Year's cake, Kozhikode youth hurts mother-in-law

• Domestic Violence

Kasaragod's Congress leaders throw tantrum after hobnobbing with Periya double murder case accused

Trouble for LDF as Kerala Congress stakes claim for a Rajya Sabha seat

Youth held for molesting 10-year-old girl at Alappuzha Medical College

2 ice cream bombs explode at Kannur's Pariyaram

Life imprisonment for accused in Vishnupriya murder case

Bystander assaults woman doctor in Kollam's Chavara

Indefinite closure of Wayanad eco-tourism centres leaves stakeholders in the lurch

Kerala govt resumes driving tests; protesters stop man from taking test in Muttathara

Summer rain to intensify in Kerala: Yellow alert in 9 districts today