Family Law News Monthly

In a prior dependency case, the juvenile court removed A.M. from mother due to mother’s substance abuse.  The court placed A.M. with her father and terminated its jurisdiction. Read more

Hart v. Hart 10/27/2025 – CA 2/2: B338817 – P.J. Lui https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B338817.PDF Under the DVPA, does the trial court have the authority to “split the difference” and renew a domestic violence restraining order (DVRO) for less than five years? No, it does not. Wife obtained a DVRO against Husband in 2023 for nine months. Just before expiration, she sought renewal. After a full evidentiary hearing in May 2024, the family court found she had a reasonable apprehension of future abuse and granted renewal—but only for another nine months, expressing that it was “not inclined to have a long duration.” Wife’s counsel argued that Family Code section 6345(a) requires a minimum five-year renewal. The court disagreed and exercised what it believed was its discretion to order a shorter period. The Court of Appeal held that, once a protected party meets the renewal standard under section 6345(a), the court has no discretion to renew a DVRO for less than five years. The statute provides that a DVRO “may be renewed, upon the request of a party, either for five or more years, or permanently, at the discretion of the court,” and legislative history confirms that “at the discretion of the court” modifies the choice among five years, more than five years, or permanent—not the minimum floor. Relying on Avalos v. Perez and SB 935’s committee analyses, the court emphasized that the Legislature extended the minimum renewal term from three to five years specifically to spare survivors the “harrowing ordeal” of repeatedly returning to court to renew the orders. A renewal for any period shorter than five years is simply not among the options the statute allows. The panel therefore reversed the duration portion of the order and remanded with directions to modify the DVRO to run for five years from the May 9, 2024 hearing date (i.e., through May 9, 2029). The court also noted that section 6345(a) separately allows later termination or modification of a renewed DVRO on stipulation or motion, preserving flexibility if circumstances materially change. Read more

The State Bar of California is currently considering a proposed amendment to Rule of Professional Conduct 7.3, which governs attorney solicitation. Because this proposal directly affects domestic violence restraining order (DVRO) practice, FLEXCOM has been actively involved throughout the public comment process. Read more

The California Lawyers Association Family Law Section (FLEXCOM) is powered by leaders who bring both vision and dedication to advancing family law statewide. This month, we highlight two such leaders, Becky R. Diel and Shanon Quinley, CFLS, whose work is shaping both the future of committee structure and reach and statewide policy. Read more

The Court of Appeal sanctioned defense counsel $1,500 and referred him to the State Bar for submitting a brief containing fabricated case citations generated by artificial intelligence. He cited to a non-existent case and misrepresented quotations from actual cases. Read more

FLEXCOM’s ‘No Holds Barred’ seminar in Walnut Creek on October 25, 2025, brought together leaders from across California’s family law community for a day of genuine dialogue, laughter, and reflection. Read more

This year, FLEXCOM is carving a new lane. It is one that unites expertise with advocacy and emphasizes the influence of thought on the law that shapes interpretation and legislation. As Chair for 2025–2026, my vision is to strengthen FLEXCOM’s role as both a thought leader and a unifying force in California family law. Read more

Father appealed Jurisdiction findings under Welfare & Institutions Code (W&I) §300(b) and (g). The Appellate Court focused on the W&I 300(g) basis. A single justified basis is sufficient for jurisdiction. W&I §300(g) is justified when a parent is unable to care for a child and unable to arrange for a child’s care. Father was incarcerated before and during the events and proceedings that required out-of-home care for his daughter. Read more

This opinion was published “as a warning. Simply stated, no brief, pleading, motion, or any other paper filed in any court should contain any citations—whether provided by generative AI or any other source—that the attorney responsible for submitting the pleading has not personally read and verified." Read more

September always feel like a restart button in family law. Clients return from summer schedules with new school-year parenting plan questions, extracurricular costs to reconciles and occasional “back to routine” conflict that needs your intervention. Read more