Lexplug logoLexplug

Altafulla v. Ervin

California Court of Appeal
238 Cal.App.4th 571 (2015)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Conduct designed to destroy the mental or emotional calm of a domestic partner, including distributing embarrassing private information and emotionally abusing the partner's children, constitutes 'abuse' sufficient to support a restraining order under the Domestic Violence Prevention Act (DVPA), regardless of the factual accuracy of the information conveyed.


Facts:

  • John Ervin and Carolina Altafulla were domestic partners who lived together with Altafulla's two daughters, aged nine and seventeen.
  • In 2011, Ervin's former wife had obtained a temporary restraining order against him after alleging he threatened her and their children with a gun.
  • In February 2014, Ervin discovered from a surveillance report that Altafulla was having a romantic affair.
  • Ervin created a digital image of the report and emailed it to the couple's mutual friends, relatives, and coworkers.
  • In the home, Ervin graphically described oral copulation to Altafulla’s daughters and stated his belief their mother had engaged in such acts.
  • Ervin warned the children they could contract sexually transmitted diseases from sharing towels with their mother.
  • Immediately after his conversation with the children, Ervin began angrily disassembling their bedroom furniture.
  • Altafulla's 17-year-old daughter was so traumatized by Ervin's behavior that she required inpatient care at a psychiatric facility, which would not release her until Ervin had moved out of the home.

Procedural Posture:

  • Carolina Altafulla filed an application in the trial court for a Domestic Violence Prevention Act (DVPA) restraining order against John Ervin and obtained a temporary order.
  • Ervin filed his own application for a restraining order against Altafulla.
  • The trial court conducted a hearing on both parties' applications.
  • The trial court granted Altafulla's application for a permanent restraining order with a five-year term.
  • The trial court denied Ervin’s application for a restraining order.
  • Ervin, as appellant, filed a timely notice of appeal from the trial court's orders to the intermediate appellate court.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a person's conduct, including sending emails exposing an affair and verbally harassing a partner's children, constitute 'abuse' sufficient to support a restraining order under the Domestic Violence Prevention Act, even if the information conveyed is factually accurate?


Opinions:

Majority - Benke, Acting P. J.

Yes. A person's conduct constitutes abuse under the Domestic Violence Prevention Act (DVPA) if it disturbs the peace of the other party, and the factual accuracy of the information used for harassment is not a defense. The court reasoned that the DVPA must be broadly construed to achieve its protective purpose. Citing In re Marriage of Nadkarni, the court affirmed that 'disturbing the peace of the other party' is a form of abuse and is defined as conduct that 'destroys the mental or emotional calm of the other party.' Ervin’s e-mail campaign and his statements to Altafulla’s children were calculated to, and did, cause severe emotional distress to both Altafulla and her daughters. This conduct served no legitimate purpose and was sufficient to support the restraining order because the factual accuracy of the affair does not make otherwise harassing and abusive conduct permissible under the DVPA.



Analysis:

This decision reinforces a broad interpretation of 'abuse' under California's Domestic Violence Prevention Act, solidifying that it encompasses psychological and emotional harm, not just physical violence. It establishes that using factually accurate information as a tool for harassment, particularly in a way that targets a partner's children, falls squarely within the statutory definition of 'disturbing the peace.' The case serves as a key precedent for situations involving non-physical coercive control, such as public shaming or digital harassment, making it clear that the truth is not a defense to conduct calculated to cause severe emotional distress in a domestic context.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query Altafulla v. Ervin (2015) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for Altafulla v. Ervin