Protective Order Against Elder Abuse Can Be Extended Without Further Abuse
California’s seniors are protected by the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act (Elder Abuse Act). Carol Ruth Denney, a 70-year-old woman who lived in the same apartment complex in Berkeley, California, for 30 years, received a protective order against her neighbor’s caretaker Joe Wright in 2020. The following year, she asked the court to renew the order, but the trial court failed to approve her request. She appealed, and the appellate court ruled that her renewal request was erroneously denied.
Joe Wright, the defendant, is a healthcare worker who takes care of Frank C., another tenant in Denney’s apartment complex. In June 2020, Denney, the plaintiff, requested a restraining order against Wright, claiming he had “yelled at her, banged on her door, threatened to break her fingers, called her ‘a bitch’ and made stabbing motions toward her with a screwdriver.” She further alleged he had “vandalized her property by pouring cat feces and urine in her car, spray-painting her property, destroying her garden, and leaving cigarette butts by her front door.” Wright denied all the allegations and claimed that in fact, it was Denney who had harassed him.
In October 2020, an Alameda County trial court held a hearing at which both Denney and Wright were witnesses. The judge issued a one-year restraining order that required Wright to stay at least 100 yards away from Denney but allowed him to remain at work so he could continue to assist Frank C. The order was issued according to the Elder Abuse Act, (California Welfare and Institutions Code §15600 et seq.). This Act was passed by the State legislature in recognition that elders “may be subjected to abuse, neglect, or abandonment and that this state has a responsibility to protect these persons.”
The Act requires the state to “foster and promote community services” for the well-being of elders and requires county adult services to investigate abuse allegations and “take any actions… necessary to protect the elderly and correct the situation and ensure the individual’s safety.”
In September 2020, Denney sought to renew her protective order. She made further allegations against Wright, including claims that he continued to harass and threaten her and that he had trapped her in her apartment. She said he broke her car’s windshield and showed photographic evidence of the damage. She also submitted her journal and other photographs and videos that she claimed documented Wright’s numerous violations of his protective order.
After one disturbing incident in November 2021, Denney called the police because she claimed Wright had violated the court’s order. They told her they could not help because her protective order had expired. Alameda County Superior Court Judge Tamiza Hockenhull held a hearing on Denney’s request for an extension the following month. Denney testified that she was “terrified” of Wright, and he responded by claiming he was “abiding by the restraining order 100%.”
After hearing from several witnesses, Hockenhull said that her job was not to review the original restraining order, but to “look at here and now and also what has occurred since that restraining order was put in place.” She then denied Denney’s renewal request, partially because there was no actual evidence that Wright was the one who had broken her windshield. Denney appealed, arguing that the court abused its discretion.
A unanimous, three-justice panel of Division Two of California’s First District Court of Appeal reversed Hockenhull on February 27 and remanded the case with directions for the trial court to “reconsider Carol’s request to renew the elder abuse restraining order” and instructions to “consider all the relevant evidence, including the factual findings in the original restraining order.” The unpublished opinion, authored by Mendocino Superior Court Judge Cindee F. Mayfield, sitting on assignment, was concurred with by Acting Presiding Justice James A. Richman and Justice Marla J. Miller.
Mayfield first explained that a ruling of abuse of discretion was to be based on whether the trial court “applied the correct legal standard.” She then discussed the Elder Abuse Act, which stipulates, “… an order may be renewed ‘without a showing of any further abuse since the issuance of the original order.’” The opinion also cited several precedents that have ruled, “The existence of the initial order and its underlying finding and facts may ‘be enough in themselves to provide the necessary proof’ to renew the order.”
Based on these rulings, Mayfield concluded that “the trial court failed to give weight to the substantial evidence in the record documenting Carol’s reasonable apprehension of future abuse and focused instead on events which transpired after issuance of the initial restraining order.” Therefore, she wrote, “The court thus erred by focusing primarily on what had happened since the restraining order was put in place to deny Carol’s renewal request.”
The opinion also mentioned Wright’s denial of wrongdoing. The appellate court said they could not rule on his claim that there was “no substantive evidence” of his abuse of the protective order. Mayfield said she could not rule on his claims that Denney was the harasser because “the court did not consider all the available evidence, including Carol’s videos.” In addition, the failure to review all the evidence prevented the Court of Appeal from determining whether Carol had a reasonable apprehension of future harm.
With the reversal and remand, each party will now be given another chance to prove their claims of abuse or the lack thereof.
