FOLLOW US

3 Key Takeaways

• California’s Sixth District Court of Appeal upheld mutual domestic violence restraining orders against both parents in a Santa Clara County parentage dispute.
• The appellate court found the trial judge properly determined that both parties acted as dominant aggressors and neither acted primarily in self-defense.
• A challenge to the original joint-custody order was dismissed as moot after the father later obtained sole legal and physical custody.

By Samuel López | USA Herald

A California appeals court has upheld mutual domestic violence restraining orders issued against both parents in a contentious Santa Clara County parentage case, finding that the trial court properly concluded both parties had acted as dominant aggressors during their relationship.

The Sixth District Court of Appeal issued its unpublished opinion on August 5, 2026, in S.R. v. B.N., affirming the mutual restraining orders while dismissing a separate custody challenge as moot.

Because the proceeding falls under California’s Domestic Violence Prevention Act, the parties are identified only by their initials.

The case began after S.R. filed a parentage action involving the parties’ young son. Both S.R. and B.N. subsequently sought domestic violence restraining orders against one another.

Competing Allegations of Domestic Violence

At the DVRO hearing, S.R. testified and presented two witnesses.

One witness told the court he had seen B.N. repeatedly strike S.R. while S.R. was driving. Another testified about a message B.N. sent disclosing information concerning S.R.’s private medical condition.

S.R. also accused B.N. of striking his daughter, repeatedly allowing their son to have contact with B.N.’s other child despite an earlier temporary order, and placing a tracker in their son’s shoe.

B.N., meanwhile, testified that S.R. had physically attacked her approximately eight or nine times during their relationship.

She described one confrontation after discovering messages from other women on S.R.’s phone. According to her testimony, S.R. grabbed her arms, pushed her to the ground, placed her in a chokehold and kicked her, leaving multiple bruises.

The trial court found credibility problems with both parties but nevertheless concluded there was credible evidence supporting allegations against each of them.

It found that B.N.’s disclosure of S.R.’s medical information was intended to disturb his peace and retaliate against him. The judge also credited testimony that B.N. struck S.R.’s daughter.

At the same time, the court found B.N.’s account of physical abuse by S.R. credible and determined that pushing her down and kicking her was not a legally justified response to recovering his phone.

California Law Requires More Than Simply Finding Abuse by Both Parties

The appellate decision is significant because California law imposes additional requirements before a judge may issue mutual DVROs.

Family Code section 6305 requires detailed factual findings establishing that both parties acted as primary aggressors and that neither acted primarily in self-defense.

Courts must also consider California Penal Code section 836, which defines the “dominant aggressor” as the most significant aggressor rather than simply the person who initiated a particular confrontation.

Relevant factors include the history of domestic violence between the parties, threats creating fear of physical injury, whether either person acted in self-defense and the law’s purpose of protecting victims from continuing abuse.

S.R. argued on appeal that the trial court improperly evaluated individual incidents instead of considering the parties’ overall relationship to determine who was truly the dominant aggressor.

The Sixth District disagreed.

The appellate panel concluded that the trial judge had examined the allegations, made credibility findings, considered whether conduct was justified by self-defense and ultimately determined that both parties qualified as dominant aggressors under California law.

The court therefore found no abuse of discretion in issuing mutual restraining orders.

Custody Dispute Took a Different Turn

The original DVRO ruling also ordered joint legal and physical custody of the parties’ child. Under that arrangement, B.N. received supervised visitation three days each week for three hours at a time.

S.R. appealed that portion of the ruling as well.

But custody continued to be litigated while the appeal was pending. Several months after the DVRO hearing, the trial court issued a new order granting S.R. sole legal and physical custody.

That development effectively eliminated the custody dispute before the Court of Appeal.

Because the earlier joint-custody order was no longer in effect, S.R. conceded that portion of his appeal was moot. The appellate court agreed and dismissed the custody challenge while leaving the mutual DVROs intact.

The opinion is designated “not to be published in official reports.” Under California Rule of Court 8.1115, unpublished opinions generally may not be cited or relied upon by courts or parties except under specified exceptions.

About the Author

Samuel López is an independent news reporter for USA Herald and has reported for the publication since 2022. López brings more than two decades of experience across the legal and insurance sectors, including work as a Senior Legal Analyst, legal researcher and investigative journalist. His reporting focuses heavily on litigation, court decisions and complex legal matters affecting individuals, businesses and institutions.

Go Beyond the Headlines With USA Herald

Legal battles and court decisions often have consequences that extend far beyond the courtroom. Stay informed with independent reporting, investigative coverage and in-depth legal analysis from USA Herald.

Subscribe to the USA Herald newsletter for exclusive reports, breaking developments and stories worth watching before they become yesterday’s news.

👉 Follow USA Herald on X at @RealUSAHerald