On September 3, 2026, the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Six, issued its decision in D.L. v. J.H., Case No. B350312, affirming a five-year renewal of a domestic violence restraining order (DVRO) obtained by our client. Morales Law, P.C. represented the respondent, D.L., throughout the appellate proceedings, and the Court of Appeal rejected every argument raised by the appellant on appeal.
The Case
Our client originally obtained a DVRO in 2017 to protect herself and her children from her former partner. That order was renewed in 2020, and a request to terminate it was denied in 2023. When our client sought a second renewal in 2025, the restrained party opposed it and—just three days before the hearing—filed a last-minute request for a live evidentiary hearing under Family Code section 217. The trial court in Santa Barbara County denied that request, found good cause existed on the record, and granted a five-year renewal of the DVRO.
The Appeal
The restrained party raised two issues on appeal. First, he argued the trial court erred by denying him an evidentiary hearing. Second, he contended the court applied the wrong legal standard in granting the renewal. The Court of Appeal rejected both arguments and affirmed the trial court’s order in full.
On the evidentiary hearing issue, the Court found the trial court properly exercised its discretion. The restrained party failed to file his witness list with his responsive papers as required by California Rules of Court, rule 5.113(e), instead waiting until three days before the hearing. His witness descriptions were also inadequate—offering only bare assertions that witnesses would testify about “the domestic violence restraining order, and all related issues” without any meaningful description of anticipated testimony. The Court held these deficiencies gave the trial court good cause to deny live testimony, and that no due process violation occurred because the restrained party had a full opportunity to submit written declarations and present argument at the hearing.
On the renewal standard, the Court of Appeal confirmed the trial court applied the correct framework under Family Code section 6345 and Ritchie v. Konrad (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 1275. Our client’s testimony about her ongoing fear, the history of abuse, and the restrained party’s repeated violations of the existing order all supported a finding of reasonable apprehension of future abuse. The Court deferred to the trial court’s credibility determinations and affirmed.
Why This Case Matters
This decision reinforces several important principles for domestic violence survivors in California. A restrained party cannot derail a DVRO renewal by filing a last-minute demand for an evidentiary hearing without complying with the procedural requirements of Family Code section 217 and California Rules of Court, rule 5.113. Courts have discretion to deny live testimony when the requesting party fails to timely file a witness list or provide meaningful descriptions of anticipated testimony. And a protected party’s reasonable apprehension of future abuse—supported by a documented history of violence and order violations—remains a sufficient basis for renewal, even when the restrained party claims changed circumstances.
Proven Appellate Advocacy in Family Law
Marcus Morales is a Certified Family Law Specialist (CFLS), a distinction held by a small percentage of California attorneys and conferred by the State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization. This certification reflects advanced knowledge, experience, and proficiency in all areas of family law, including complex litigation and appellate practice.
Morales Law, P.C. has built a strong track record in the California Courts of Appeal, maintaining a high appellate win rate across a range of family law matters including domestic violence restraining orders, custody disputes, support litigation, and property division. Appellate work demands a different skill set than trial practice—meticulous briefing, command of the standard of review, and the ability to frame factual records in the most persuasive light. Our firm brings that level of preparation to every case, whether we are defending a favorable trial court ruling on appeal or challenging an adverse one.
If you are facing a family law matter that may involve appellate issues, or if you need experienced trial counsel who can protect the record for appeal, contact Morales Law, P.C. to schedule a consultation.
Disclaimer: This blog post is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The opinion discussed is unpublished and may not be cited as precedent in California courts except as permitted by California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(b). Every case is unique, and outcomes depend on the specific facts and circumstances involved. If you need legal advice, please consult a qualified attorney.