Valerie G. v. Louis G.
218 Cal. Rptr. 3d 200, 2017 WL 2351323, 11 Cal. App. 5th 773 (2017)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Domestic Violence Prevention Act (DVPA), an intentionally or recklessly caused bodily injury does not constitute "abuse" within the meaning of Family Code section 6203 if the injury was inflicted by a party acting in reasonable self-defense or defense of property against the aggressor.
Facts:
- Valerie G. and Louis G. were married and involved in marital dissolution proceedings.
- During their marriage, Valerie and Louis frequently argued, leading to physical confrontations.
- In August 2015, Valerie took Louis's work laptop and hid it; after Louis found it, Valerie blocked the bedroom doorway and physically grappled with him to take the laptop.
- During the struggle over the laptop, Valerie spat in Louis's face and covered his mouth and nose with her hand, prompting Louis to "nip" her thumb to free his airways.
- In the same August 2015 incident, as Valerie continued struggling for the laptop, they fell onto the bed, and Valerie hit her knee on the bed frame.
- In November 2015, Valerie snatched Louis's cell phone from his desk in the garage, and later, during a struggle over the phone, she lost her grip and balance, falling on her tailbone and possibly hitting her head on the car.
- Later in November 2015, after Valerie announced she would file a police report and seek a DVRO, Louis began packing his belongings, which enraged Valerie.
- Valerie then assaulted Louis, reached into his pocket and grabbed his cell phone, leading to another struggle that carried them into the kitchen where Louis pinched a nerve and Valerie put his phone in the sink under running water.
Procedural Posture:
- Valerie G. filed a petition for dissolution of marriage, requesting legal and physical custody of their son and child support.
- Concurrently, Valerie G. filed an application for a Domestic Violence Restraining Order (DVRO) against Louis G., seeking a "Stay-Away" order protecting herself, her son, and her mother.
- Louis G. filed written opposition to the DVRO application, denying violence and asserting Valerie was abusive, and also requested joint legal and physical custody.
- The trial court held an evidentiary hearing on Valerie G.'s DVRO application.
- The trial court ruled against Valerie G., concluding that her injuries resulted from physical confrontations she instigated and that Louis G. did not use excessive force in response, and therefore denied the DVRO.
- Valerie G. appealed the trial court's denial of her DVRO application.
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 commit "abuse" under Family Code section 6203, part of the Domestic Violence Prevention Act, when they inflict bodily injury upon another during a physical confrontation if that injury resulted from the first person's reasonable self-defense or defense of property against the other party's aggression?
Opinions:
Majority - Dato, J.
No, a person does not commit "abuse" under Family Code section 6203 when they inflict bodily injury upon another during a physical confrontation if that injury resulted from the first person's reasonable self-defense or defense of property against the other party's aggression. The court affirmed the trial court's order denying the DVRO, holding that while Family Code section 6203 defines abuse to include intentionally or recklessly caused bodily injury, a finding of abuse is not mandated if the injury occurred during reasonable self-defense or defense of property. This principle aligns with long-standing California law, as established in cases like Calvillo-Silva v. Home Grocery, which states a person is privileged to use "any necessary force" to protect oneself or property from "wrongful injury," provided the force is no more than reasonably necessary. The court noted that Family Code section 6305, concerning mutual restraining orders, also reflects the Legislature's understanding that reasonable self-defense is a defense to a claim of abuse by stating that a mutual order cannot be issued if either party acted primarily in self-defense. The trial court's factual findings—that Louis acted in response to Valerie’s attempts to take his property by physical force and did not employ excessive force—were supported by substantial evidence. The question of what force was reasonable and justified is for the trier of fact, and the trial court specifically rejected Valerie’s claim of excessive force.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the application of California's Domestic Violence Prevention Act (DVPA), specifically Family Code section 6203, by explicitly incorporating the concept of reasonable self-defense and defense of property into the definition of "abuse." It confirms that not all intentionally or recklessly caused bodily injuries will lead to a DVRO if the actions were justified responses to an aggressor. This decision prevents the DVPA from being used to penalize individuals who lawfully defend themselves or their property from physical aggression and reinforces the importance of the trial court's role as the trier of fact in determining the reasonableness of force used in such confrontations.
