A California appellate court has overturned a trial court’s decision to deny a father’s request for a Domestic Violence Restraining Order (DVRO) against his ex-wife, ruling that the lower court applied the wrong legal standard and focused too narrowly on the mother’s intent rather than the pattern of abusive behavior.
The ruling sends the case back to the Los Angeles County Superior Court with instructions to grant the DVRO requested by Robert W. Rinker II against Cindi Rinker. The appellate court found that Robert had presented sufficient evidence of past abuse, including stalking and harassment, to warrant the protective order under the Domestic Violence Prevention Act (DVPA).
Background of High-Conflict Custody Battle
The dispute between Robert and Cindi, who divorced in 2020, centers on their son, W., born in 2015. The couple’s history is marked by significant mental health concerns raised by Cindi. In 2019, Robert sought emergency custody after Cindi was hospitalized following a suicide attempt involving an overdose of Prozac, which she claimed was accidental.
The case involved the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) due to allegations of sexual abuse against W. by his paternal grandfather, though DCFS ultimately found those allegations inconclusive. DCFS later filed a petition citing risk to W. due to Cindi’s mental and emotional issues, including diagnoses of psychosis and erratic behavior. While Cindi received joint legal custody and Robert received primary physical custody with monitored visits, the arrangement evolved over time, culminating in unmonitored visitation for Cindi by April 2022.
Father Alleges Escalating Stalking and Harassment
In May 2024, Robert sought the DVRO, alleging that Cindi’s conduct, which he described as “progressively getting worse” since late 2023, amounted to stalking and harassment, causing him and W. fear.
Robert’s detailed declaration painted a picture of increasingly alarming behavior. Allegations included Cindi sitting outside his home at all hours, ringing the doorbell incessantly, and refusing to leave even when threatened with police involvement. He claimed she was “stalking us almost daily.”
Specific incidents cited included:
* In December 2023, Cindi allegedly followed Robert and W. home, entered their residence without permission, and refused to leave for two hours. During this time, she allegedly confronted the grandfather and grabbed his shirt.
* In March and April 2024, Cindi followed Robert home, repeatedly rang the doorbell, and picked up W. from school unannounced, recording the child and disparaging Robert to him.
* In May 2024, Cindi allegedly followed them during outings, tried to gain access to a friend’s home where they were visiting, and once got into Robert’s car without permission, refusing to exit.
* The most dramatic incident occurred in mid-May when Cindi allegedly followed Robert and W. onto the freeway, driving erratically, speeding up, and pulling alongside his car, signaling him to stop. She also threatened to contact Robert’s work and parents.
Robert testified that W. was scared of his mother’s conduct, stating he didn’t want her following them or questioning him. The trial court initially granted a temporary restraining order, maintaining Robert’s sole custody and returning Cindi to monitored visitation pending the hearing.
Trial Court Focuses on Mental Health, Not Abuse Threshold
At the June 2024 hearing, both parties appeared without attorneys. Cindi denied most allegations but admitted to repeatedly visiting the house, knocking, and sometimes refusing to leave when asked, arguing she was trying to schedule visits with W. because Robert stopped communicating.
The appellate court noted that the trial judge seemed to accept much of Robert’s testimony regarding the “obsessive behavior” and stalking. However, the court stated its primary concern was whether this conduct arose from a medical condition that could be addressed outside the scope of a DVRO.
The judge concluded that Robert had not proven by a preponderance of the evidence that the freeway pursuit was an “intentional attempt to threaten or otherwise intimidate.” The court suggested Cindi’s actions were related to her adjustment disorder, which she claimed was being managed through therapy.
The trial court denied the full DVRO request but cautioned Cindi about the need for continued therapy, warning that if similar behavior recurred, Robert could return for an order. The court did, however, agree that Cindi’s conduct was “sufficiently alarming” to require professional monitoring for her visitation moving forward.
Appellate Court Finds Misapplication of Law
The Court of Appeal strongly disagreed with the trial court’s reasoning. The appellate panel emphasized that the DVPA is designed to be broadly construed to prevent domestic violence, encompassing not only physical harm but also stalking, harassment, and conduct that “disturbs the peace.” Disturbing the peace includes coercive control and monitoring movements—precisely the type of behavior Robert alleged.
The appellate court pointed out the critical legal error: the trial court improperly focused on Cindi’s *intent* or whether her actions stemmed from a mental illness, rather than whether the *conduct itself* met the statutory definition of abuse.
Citing prior precedent, including its own recent ruling in *G.G. v. G.S.*, the court stated that stalking and controlling behaviors cause significant psychological damage on their own and do not require proof of malicious intent to qualify as abuse under the DVPA.
The court highlighted the contradictions in the trial court’s findings: if the behavior was “clearly obsessive,” “alarming,” and necessitated monitored visitation, it logically supported the finding of abuse required for a DVRO. Robert was only required to show “reasonable proof of a past act or acts of abuse,” not a probability of future harm or malicious intent.
Because the trial court relied on an incorrect legal standard—requiring proof of intent—it abused its discretion by denying the DVRO despite finding the conduct alarming and largely uncontradicted. The appellate court reversed the denial and ordered the trial court to grant the requested DVRO.