Lexplug logoLexplug

Rybolt v. Riley

California Court of Appeal, 5th District
20 Cal.App.5th 864, 229 Cal. Rptr. 3d 576 (2018)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A court may renew a domestic violence restraining order if the protected party entertains a reasonable apprehension of future abuse, an objective standard that does not require a showing of further physical abuse since the original order. The court may base its finding on the severity of the original abuse, subsequent non-physical violations of the order, and ongoing conduct that disturbs the protected party's peace.


Facts:

  • Courtney E. Rybolt and James E. Riley IV are parents to a minor child, M.R.
  • In 2011, Riley engaged in conduct against Rybolt that included sexual assault, stalking, and threats, which led to an initial restraining order.
  • Following the initial order, Riley's family members harassed Rybolt by following her and sending threatening emails.
  • Riley repeatedly violated the 25-yard stay-away provision of the restraining order at their son's school events and extracurricular activities.
  • Riley engaged in manipulative behavior, such as informing Rybolt he would attend their son's events during her parenting time, causing her anxiety, and then failing to appear.
  • During a school carnival on Rybolt's parenting time, Riley attempted to bribe and manipulate their son with tickets, causing the child visible stress.
  • Rybolt testified to being in constant fear of Riley, experiencing anxiety, shakiness, and nausea, and installed video surveillance at her home as a result.
  • Riley had been dismissed from his prior job as a California Highway Patrol officer for dishonesty.

Procedural Posture:

  • In May 2011, Courtney Rybolt filed a request for a domestic violence restraining order against James Riley in a state trial court.
  • After a trial, the court granted the restraining order based on findings that Riley had sexually assaulted, stalked, and threatened Rybolt.
  • In subsequent years, the trial court made further orders related to child custody and parenting plans, including one in 2015 that allowed Riley to attend half of their son's extracurricular activities.
  • In February 2016, Rybolt filed a request in the trial court to renew the 2011 restraining order.
  • Riley contested the renewal.
  • After a contested trial where both parties testified, the trial court granted Rybolt's request, renewing the restraining order for five years and modifying the parenting plan.
  • Riley, as appellant, appealed the trial court's order to the California Court of Appeal.

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 trial court abuse its discretion by renewing a domestic violence restraining order where the protected party's fear is based on the original acts of violence and the restrained party's subsequent non-physical violations of the order and manipulative behavior, even without new physical threats?


Opinions:

Majority - Robie, Acting P. J.

No. A trial court does not abuse its discretion by renewing a domestic violence restraining order when the protected party’s fear is based on a totality of the circumstances, including the serious nature of the original abuse, subsequent violations of the order, and ongoing manipulative conduct that disturbs the protected party's peace. The court found that the standard for renewal is a 'reasonable apprehension of future abuse,' which is an objective test and does not require new acts of abuse or a fear of future physical violence. The facts underlying the original order—which included sexual assault, stalking, and threats—were in themselves sufficient to support a reasonable apprehension. Furthermore, Riley's repeated violations of the 25-yard stay-away provision and his use of the child's activities to harass and control Rybolt constituted 'disturbing the peace,' a form of abuse under the Domestic Violence Prevention Act. The court properly considered changed circumstances, like Riley completing an anger management course, but found they did not outweigh his ongoing abusive conduct and past dishonesty.



Analysis:

This case clarifies and reinforces the legal standard for renewing a domestic violence restraining order established in Ritchie v. Konrad. It emphasizes that 'abuse' under the Domestic Violence Prevention Act is broad and includes non-physical conduct such as harassment, stalking, and disturbing the peace of the protected party. The decision confirms that even without new acts of physical violence, a renewal can be justified based on the severity of the original abuse combined with subsequent controlling and manipulative behavior that causes the protected party genuine and reasonable fear. This strengthens protections for victims by focusing on the objective reasonableness of their fear in light of the restrained party's overall pattern of conduct.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Rybolt v. Riley (2018)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"