California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Marriage F.M. v. M.M., 279 Cal.Rptr.3d 522, 65 Cal.App.5th 106 (Cal. App. 2021):
Here, the trial court repeatedly stated on the record that mother's protection from abuse could be accomplished simply by having her and the parties six children move out of the house. For example, at the September 2019 hearing, the court stated that it was "not as much concerned" about the allegations that father had threatened to kill mother and had verbally abused her in front of their children, because those behaviors were, in the court's view, simply a function of them living together. At the same time, the court repeatedly stated that the parties needed to stay away from each other, which the court presumably believed they could do without a court order in place. This was error. (See Cueto v. Dozier (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 550, 562, 193 Cal.Rptr.3d 663 ["These comments [warning the respondent to stay away from the petitioner after denying her petition] suggest that the trial court believed there was a need to admonish [the respondent] from the bench that he must continue to stay away [from] and have no contact with [the petitioner], but without giving [the petitioner] the legal protection of a restraining order."].)
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.