Marriage of Hulse CA4/1
Defendant and appellant Daniel Hulse appeals a domestic violence restraining order (DVRO) issued in this pending dissolution action, as requested by his wife, Rachael Hulse, the respondent here. Daniel argues the trial court abused its discretion by granting a DVRO where there was no support for a finding of a past act or acts of abuse. He contends the family court granted the DVRO solely because he violated a previous court order by accepting brief contact from his children, which, Daniel argues, does not constitute abuse nor justify granting a restraining order under the Domestic Violence Protection Act (DVPA). (Fam. Code, § 6200 et seq.) Daniel also contends the family court abused its discretion by issuing the DVRO for the maximum term allowed. Finally, Daniel claims that Rachael sought the DVRO to gain a tactical advantage in the custody dispute for their three minor children.
Comments on Marriage of Hulse CA4/1