Family Law specialist M. Jude Egan urges custody and visitation lawyers and legal aid clinics who represent survivors of abuse to consider deeply the implications of treating DVROs as distinct matters or included matters in dissolution cases on custody, visitation, and support issues particularly.
January 13, 2022 at 02:37 PM
I do not like publicizing my appellate court losses. I like to win as much as any lawyer. However, I
make an exception in the newly published case of Marriage of Reichental 2d Civil No. B307255,
which presents us with a definitive published decision on an important area of law for family law
practitioners across the state (even if it was not the ultimate outcome we sought).
Those of us who have been practicing family law for longer than the past couple of years have
grown accustomed to “non-CLETS” Domestic Violence Restraining Orders (DVRO). A “non-CLETS”
order is enforceable via contempt rather than through law enforcement. The difference for non-family lawyers is
that violation of a CLETS, or California Law Enforcement Telecommunications
System, order leads to immediate arrest by law enforcement and violation of a non-CLETS leads
(potentially) to a citation for contempt.
The “non-CLETS” order was a contrived middle ground between a full CLETS order and no
restraining orders, letting a party know that the court was serious about stopping abuse without
going so far as to issue a CLETS order. “Non-CLETS” orders have often been conceived as “mutual
stay away” orders.
(To read full article click the link below the title)
“Reprinted with permission from the Jan. 13 issue of The Recorder. © 2022 ALM Media Properties, LLC. Further duplication without permission is prohibited. All rights reserved.”