Vinson v. Kinsey
Certified for Partial Publication (June 27, 2023), Not yet published in official reporter. (2023)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A trial court abuses its discretion by denying a Domestic Violence Restraining Order (DVRO) request if it applies an improperly narrow definition of "abuse" under the Domestic Violence Prevention Act (DVPA), fails to consider the totality of the circumstances and all evidence presented, or dismisses a victim's credibility based on a mistaken assumption of how a battered person should act.
Facts:
- Onika Vinson and Edric Kinsey were formerly in a relationship and share two children.
- In June 2020, Kinsey punched Vinson in the face and pushed her to the floor, leaving her with bruises on her face and arm.
- Kinsey consistently verbally abused Vinson for many years, threatened to kill her on numerous occasions, and appeared at her house unannounced.
- Kinsey sent Vinson numerous text messages containing repeated threats to hurt or kill her, expressions of regret for not having hurt her more, an admission that he hit her, and refusal to accept the end of their relationship.
- Vinson's relatives and a friend provided signed statements describing Kinsey's verbal abuse, Vinson's injuries from his assaults (including a fractured nose reported by her mother and Vinson herself), and Kinsey punching holes in Vinson's walls and breaking her furniture.
- In March 2022, while Vinson drove Kinsey to a grocery store, Kinsey became irate and threatened to "beat [her] face in" and to kill her, as he had on other occasions.
Procedural Posture:
- On April 25, 2022, Onika Vinson filed a request for a Domestic Violence Restraining Order (DVRO) against Edric Kinsey in Alameda County Superior Court (trial court/court of first instance).
- The trial court issued a temporary restraining order and child custody order pending a hearing.
- At the May 12, 2022 hearing, the trial court denied Vinson's request for the DVRO, stating that she was "not particularly concerned" about Kinsey's threats and that his "comment that he will kill her" had "no meaning."
- The trial court referred the parties to Family Court Services for visitation orders and later adopted their recommendations for child custody and Kinsey's supervised (and then unsupervised) visitation.
- On May 18, 2022, the trial court filed its Findings and Orders After Hearing.
- On November 7, 2022, Onika Vinson, as Plaintiff and Appellant, filed a timely notice of appeal to the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Two.
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 when denying a domestic violence restraining order request by (1) applying an improperly narrow definition of "abuse" that requires threats to cause reasonable apprehension of imminent serious bodily injury, (2) failing to consider the totality of the circumstances and all evidence of abuse, and (3) rejecting the petitioner's credibility based on a stereotypical view of how a domestic violence victim should react?
Opinions:
Majority - Stewart, P.J.
Yes, the trial court abused its discretion by applying an improperly narrow definition of "abuse" under the Domestic Violence Prevention Act (DVPA), failing to consider the totality of the circumstances and all evidence of abuse, and rejecting Vinson's credibility based on a stereotypical view of how a domestic violence victim should react. The court held that the trial court's view of "abuse" was too limited, as "threatening" is listed in Family Code section 6320 without qualification by type or effect, meaning threats do not necessarily need to cause reasonable fear of serious bodily injury to constitute abuse under section 6203, subdivision (a)(4). It distinguished this from section 6203, subdivision (a)(3), which specifically requires "reasonable apprehension of imminent serious bodily injury." The court found the trial court improperly focused on Vinson's continued contact with Kinsey and the delay in filing the request to discredit her, effectively imposing a "singular vision of how an abused woman should act," which is contrary to understanding how victims of domestic violence often respond, given that leaving an abusive relationship is a complex process. The court also noted the trial court failed to consider the vast amount of evidence Vinson submitted, including prior physical assaults, destruction of property, numerous threatening texts, and witness statements, thereby failing to consider the "totality of the circumstances" as required by Family Code section 6301, subdivision (c). This demonstrated an erroneous understanding of applicable law and an unexercised discretion, warranting reversal and remand for reconsideration.
Analysis:
This case clarifies that California trial courts must adopt a broad interpretation of "abuse" under the DVPA, recognizing that threats do not always need to cause imminent serious bodily injury to qualify as abuse. It provides critical guidance against stereotypical assumptions about how domestic violence victims should behave, emphasizing that a victim's continued contact with an abuser or delay in seeking protection should not automatically undermine their credibility. Future cases must ensure a comprehensive review of all evidence and the "totality of the circumstances" to avoid an abuse of discretion, thereby better protecting victims of various forms of domestic violence.
