Law Office of Rex A. Schroder

On September 29, 2020 California S.B. 1141, Chapter 248, was filed with the California Secretary of State enacting revisions to Family Code section 6320, a part of the Domestic Violence Prevention Act ("DVPA"). The amendments add new subsections (c) and (d), providing for a greatly expanded definition of disturbing the peace of the other party within the definition of abuse under Family Code section 6203. This amendment defines disturbing the peace of the other party as... conduct that destroys the mental or emotional calm of the other party, including conduct that amounts to coercive control as being a pattern of behavior that unreasonably interferes with a person's free will and personal liberty, unreasonably isolating a victim from friends, relatives, or other sources of support, depriving a person of basic necessities of life, keeping a person under monitoring, and intimidating by use of a person’s immigration status. Keep in mind, this law only applies to persons within certain defined relationships (immediate family members, current and former dating partners, common-household members, etc). The New Law The full text of the new Family Code section 6320 now provides (with the new portions in italics below): (a) The court may issue an ex parte order enjoining a party from molesting, attacking, striking, stalking, threatening, sexually assaulting, battering, credibly impersonating as described in Section 528.5 of the Penal Code, falsely personating as described in Section 529 of the Penal Code, harassing, telephoning, including, but not limited to, making annoying telephone calls as described in Section 653m of the Penal Code, destroying personal property, contacting, either directly or indirectly, by mail or otherwise, coming within a specified distance of, or disturbing the peace of the other party, and, in the discretion of the court, on a showing of good cause, of other named family or household members. (b) On a showing of good cause, the court may include in a protective order a grant to the petitioner of the exclusive care, possession, or control of any animal owned, possessed, leased, kept, or held by either the petitioner or the respondent or a minor child residing in the residence or household of either the petitioner or the respondent. The court may order the respondent to stay away from the animal and forbid the respondent from taking, transferring, encumbering, concealing, molesting, attacking, striking, threatening, harming, or otherwise disposing of the animal.

CALIFORNIA COURT OF APPEAL Civil Procedure A trial judge abused his discretion in denying a motion to set aside a default where the warning of the impending default came by email, the attorney was presented with an unreasonably short deadline by which to respond, the attorney had significant family emergencies and there was no real prejudice that would result from granting the motion.... Lasalle v. Vogel; Fourth District, Div. Three; filed June 11, 2019

Criminal Law and Procedure Under the plain language of Health and Safety Code 11362.1, possession of less than an ounce of cannabis in prison is no longer a felony; the remedy for clearly written language that achieves a dubious policy outcome is not judicial intervention but correction by the electorate or the Legislature. People v. Raybon; Third District; filed June 11, 2019

California OKs Health Care for Some Adult Immigrants & CLEAN DRINKING WATER!! SACRAMENTO (AP) Some low-income adults in California living in the country illegally will soon get their health benefits paid for by taxpayers. Democrats in the state Legislature on Sunday agreed to make adults between the ages of 19 and 25 eligible for the state’s Medicaid program. Not everyone will get those benefits, only people whose incomes are low enough to qualify for the program. State of...Continue reading

- Family Law A criminal protective order does not bar the entry of a domestic violence restraining order. Lugo v. Corona; Second District, Div. Four; filed May 28, 2019... http://sos.metnews.com/sos.cgi?0519//B288730 Cite as 2019 S.O.S. 2523 - Family Law The provision of Family Code 1612(c) requiring a trial court to consider whether a premarital agreement was unconscionable at the time of enforcement does not apply to premarital agreements entered prior to Jan. 1, 2002; while circumstances existing at the time of the enforcement of a pre-2002 spousal support waiver might make enforcement unjust, no case addressing unjust enforcement of a spousal support waiver has rested on a finding of unconscionability based solely on circumstances existing at the time of enforcement. Once a trial court has terminated its jurisdiction over spousal support, it does not have authority to reinstate that jurisdiction based on a change in the parties’ circumstances. In re Marriage of Miotke; Sixth District; filed May 28, 2019 http://sos.metnews.com/sos.cgi?0519//H040611 Cite as 2019 S.O.S. 2525