Wednesday, February 25, 2026

J.S. v. D.A. (Cal. Ct. App. - Feb. 25, 2026)

I really, really like everything about this opinion. It's equitable. It's reasonable. It's fair. It shows compassion. It's exactly what you'd like to see.

I would strongly predict that J.S. will ultimately get the TRO extended to a permanent domestic violence protective order. But there's no reason why the respondent, D.A., shouldn't at least be allowed to show up (either personally or remotely) to contest those proceedings. Even though he's in prison right now. He's got a legitimate interest in the matter. Let him appear. That's the essential core of due process, after all.

I also like that the Court of Appeal doesn't immediately vacate the DVRO, but instead lets it continue for 30 days while the trial court gets it together on remand. Totally reasonable.

And all of this without even a brief or any other submission by respondent.

Really well done.

P.S. - The caption says: "APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Brigid Campo, Judge." But I think that she's actually a commissioner, right?