In Loeffler v. Medina, the court denied an application to terminate a domestic violence restraining order because it found that the circumstances had not sufficiently changed.
In this case, the parties were in a relationship from 1995 to 2001. In April 2001, the trial court issued a restraining order against Medina because of his behavior to her and was not allowed within 200 yards of her or her daughter.
After the restraining order was about to end, Loeffler filed for an extension of the restraining order because she was concerned that Medina might harass or harm her if the restraining order was not renewed. Loeffler cited reasons such as she was recently the prevailing party to a real property partition against Medina concerning their jointly owned home and she had experienced several acts of vandalism and harassment of which she suspected Medina. Loeffler could not find Medina to effect service, so the trial court allowed Medina to be served by substituted service directed to the clerk of the court. The restraining order was extended indefinitely with no expiration date.
Three months later, Medina filed a request to terminate the restraining order stating that Loeffler knew of his home address and failed to properly serve him. The trial court denied his request to terminate the restraining order.
Two years later, Medina filed another application to terminate the restraining order. He based his request on the facts that he was currently residing in Arizona, had recently married, had minimal contacts with the San Diego area, and the restraining order was impacting his employment and possible future activity as a reserve law enforcement officer.
Evidence was presented that established that Medina was in fact in San Diego many times during that past year, he still had an apartment in La Mesa in 2006, had close family members in San Diego, and his parents lived less than three miles from Loeffler’s house.
Therefore, the court found that there were few changed circumstances that would justify a termination of the court order. Even though Medina was married and living in Arizona, he had returned to San Diego County to visit friends and relatives. The trial court found that Medina was able to work in the construction field with the current restraining order and thus his employment was not impacted. The trial court found that simply because Medina might volunteer again is not sufficient reason to allow him to possess firearms.
The trial court found that Loeffler still had a reasonable apprehension of future abuse and that a permanent restraining order was necessary in this case.
The court went on to further state that there are 3 different reasons to request a termination of the restraining order as set forth in Code of Civil Procedure Section 533.
The first occasion is when the law upon which the injunction was granted has changed. Here, the court determined that there had been no change in the law that applied.
The second occasion is when there is a material change in the facts of the case. The court found that there was no material change of circumstances because Medina still had continuing contact in the San Diego area even if he had moved to Arizona and remarried. He had many friends and close families members in San Diego and his parents home was less than three miles from Loeffler’s home. Further, Loeffler saw Medina driving around many times in San Diego.
Third is if the ends of justice would be served. Medina argued that the restraining order should be terminated to allow him to carry a gun as a volunteer law enforcement officer and so that he also would not be barred from construction jobs that required a security clearance. The court said that simply because Medina may chose to volunteer again is not a justification to remove the court order and allow him to carry firearms. Further, some of the agencies he argued he wanted to volunteer for do not require volunteers to carry a gun. Second, the court found that Medina has been able to work in his construction field with the current restraining order and thus has not impacted his employment.
Therefore, the court denied Medina’s request to terminate the restraining order because the circumstances had not significantly changed.
Whether individuals decide to bring a restraining order or defend a restraining order, they should enlist the services of qualified legal counsel. A skilled Southern California family law attorney at Wallin & Klarich can help distinguish with the rules and laws regarding restraining orders and protect your interest. Contact our Southern California family law firm today by calling 888-749-7428 or visit us on our website at www.wkfamilylaw.com. We will be there when you call.
