Judge Harold Hopp’s personal vendetta against a litigant in the Riverside Superior Court has outlined the outrageous and malicious nature of the Presiding Judge and his sentiments to domestic violence. October is Domestic Violence awareness month and the Presiding Judge in previous hearings had made it clear that Judge Harold Hopp does not consider restraining orders as domestic violence or abuse and influences the entire court with his outrageous sentiment in violation of all prevailing law.
Domestic violence in family law is defined strictly by the corresponding statute and the incidences of domestic violence are subjective as the victim experiences the abuse and not the judiciary. Judge Harold Hopp has a firm belief that any restraining order issued in family law is not abuse. The court has previously held domestic violence awareness seminars led by the respective family law judges, which has come to a complete halt due to Judge Hopp’s belief that domestic violence affecting parents and children is not relevant.
A request for restraining order in one case has been listed as ACTIVE for SIXTEEN DAYS and is still a pending proceeding under the law. The mandatory action requires a TRO to be issued and a hearing to be set within 21-25 days, (CA family code 246, 242). The Riverside Superior Court Presiding Judge refuses to act in any manner according to the law and based on any all relevant procedures.
The court is REQUIRED TO address whether the abusive behavior has already been enjoined under the domestic violence act pursuant to CA family code.
Courts construe the DVPA liberally, and may issue a domestic violence restraining order when the applicant makes the requisite showing by a preponderance of the evidence. Gdowski v. Gdowski (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 128, 137.)
Abuse includes any behavior that has been or could be enjoined pursuant to section 6320. (§ 6203, (a) subd. (4.) The behavior outlined in § 6320 includes “stalking, threatening, . . . harassing, telephoning, . . . contacting, either directly or indirectly, by mail or otherwise, coming within a specified distance of, or disturbing the peace of the other party . . . .” (§ 6320, subd. (a).) Thus, the requisite abuse need not be actual infliction of physical injury or assault, Conness v. Satram (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 197, 202.) Rather, such abuse includes threatening, harassing, telephoning, and disturbing the peace of the other party. (§§ 6203, subd. (d), 6320.) “‘[D]isturbing the peace of the other party’” means “conduct that destroys the mental or emotional calm of the other party.” In re Marriage of Nadkarni (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 1483, 1497.
The statute does not require a court to find there has been prior domestic violence, or that there is a likelihood of physical abuse in the future, to impose a protective order. (See Ritchie v. Konrad, 10 Cal. Rptr. 3d 387, 115 Cal. App. 4th 1275 (Ct. App. 2004). Instead, section 6203 specifically provides that any of the acts stated in section 6320 are sufficient to justify an order. Those acts include “contacting” the other person “by mail or otherwise,””telephoning,” or “disturbing the peace of the other party.” (§ 6320.) Under the statutory language, a court may impose a protective order based solely on a party’s “annoying telephone calls or sending unwanted e-mails” even if there is “no indication he or she poses a reasonable threat of physical violence . . . .” (Ritchie, supra, at p. 1299.)
Acts of abuse include temporary restraining orders and acts of abuse where a restraining order has not been issued as defined by In re Marriage of Fajota, 230 Cal. App. 4th 1487, 179 Cal. Rptr. 3d 569 (Ct. App. 2014).