{"id":299,"date":"2026-02-25T12:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-02-25T12:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=299"},"modified":"2026-02-25T12:00:00","modified_gmt":"2026-02-25T12:00:00","slug":"j-s-v-d-a-d086356-incarcerated-respondent-meaningful-access-dvro","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=299","title":{"rendered":"J.S. v. D.A. \u2014 Trial Court Again Erred by Issuing DVRO Without Addressing Incarcerated Respondent’s Request to Appear by Phone"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
Case<\/dt>\n
J.S. v. D.A.<\/dd>\n
Court<\/dt>\n
4th District Court of Appeal, Division One<\/dd>\n
Date Decided<\/dt>\n
2026-02-25<\/dd>\n
Docket No.<\/dt>\n
D086356<\/dd>\n
Status<\/dt>\n
Reported \/ Citable<\/dd>\n
Topics<\/dt>\n
Domestic Violence Restraining Order, Incarcerated Litigants, Right to Meaningful Access to Courts, Telephonic Appearance, Due Process<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n<\/div>\n

Background<\/h2>\n

This is the second appellate reversal of a domestic violence restraining order in the same matter. In the first appeal, the Fourth District reversed a three-year DVRO that J.S. obtained against her former fianc\u00e9 D.A. because the trial court failed to address D.A.’s request to be transported from the San Diego County Jail to the evidentiary hearing.<\/p>\n

On remand, J.S. filed a new DVRO petition, alleging that D.A. \u2014 now an inmate at Donovan Correctional Facility \u2014 had repeatedly contacted her from prison with threats and harassment, including statements like ‘If I cannot be with you, then you cannot be with anyone else.’ D.A. filed a written response confirming his correctional-facility address and requested that the trial court order CDCR to prepare him to appear telephonically at the evidentiary hearing. The trial court, with a different bench officer, again failed to address D.A.’s request and proceeded with the hearing in his absence, issuing a five-year DVRO. D.A. appealed.<\/p>\n

The Court’s Holding<\/h2>\n

The Court of Appeal reversed. Indigent inmates in bona fide civil actions affecting their substantive interests have a constitutional right to meaningful access to the courts under both the federal and state due-process and equal-protection clauses. A DVRO proceeding plainly affects the respondent’s substantive interests, and the trial court must address an incarcerated respondent’s request for meaningful participation \u2014 whether through transport, telephonic appearance, or another reasonable accommodation.<\/p>\n

The trial court’s failure to even consider D.A.’s telephonic-appearance request, after this exact issue had been the subject of a prior reversal, was constitutional error. The court emphasized that prompt identification and resolution of these requests is critical for both petitioners and respondents \u2014 duplicative proceedings necessitated by these errors are burdensome for victims of domestic violence and may discourage them from pursuing protective relief.<\/p>\n

The case was remanded with directions for the trial court to address D.A.’s appearance request and to conduct the evidentiary hearing consistent with his right to meaningful access to the courts.<\/p>\n

Key Takeaways<\/h2>\n