DVRO Cannot Be Renewed for Period Less Than Five Years

Tuesday, October 28, 2025

Page 1

Court of Appeal:

DVRO Cannot Be Renewed for Period Less Than Five Years

By a MetNews Staff Writer

A judge abused her discretion by renewing a stay-away order imposed on an ex-husband for a period of less than five years, Div. Two of the Court of Appeal for this district declared yesterday.

Presiding Justice Elwood Lui authored the opinion which reverses a domestic violence restraining order (“DVRO”) imposed by Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Christine J. Gonong on Steven Hart, former husband of appellant Ashley McCall Hart.

At issue is the meaning of Family Code §6345(a) which sets forth that DVROs “may be renewed, upon the request of a party, either for five or more years, or permanently, at the discretion of the court, without a showing of further abuse since the issuance of the original order.”

Judge Gonong’s View

At a hearing on May 9, 2024, Ashley Hart’s Beverly Hills attorney, Melissa B. Buchman, asserted that under §6345, the minimum duration of a DVRO is five years. Gonong disagreed, saying:

“[M]y reading of that is it gives the party who is wanting to renew, who wants to renew ask for a maximum of five years or permanent; right? But I’m exercising my discretion. I have the option not to grant five years if I don’t think it’s appropriate.”

She added:

I don’t think that from what I heard today that anything beyond nine months of renewal is appropriate. The fact that the initial restraining order was only for nine months, I don’t want to read anything into that. But it was—the court has already made a finding that it was only appropriate for nine months.”

Argument on Appeal

Buchman argued on appeal:

“Here, the current version of Family Code § 6345(a) is clear on its face in that in renewing a DVRO, the trial court only has discretion only to select one of the following three periods of time to renew a DVRO: (i) five years; (ii) more than five years; or (iii) permanently….”

Gonong’s interpretation, she said, “would render the clause ‘either for five or more years, or permanently,’ mere surplusage because the trial court would have discretion to renew for any period of time.”

Lui agreed with Buchman. He wrote:

“We conclude that the family court’s ruling renewing the DVRO for a period of less than five years was contrary to the mandatory minimum duration set out in section 6345 and must be reversed. The family court simply did not have discretion to order renewal for a period of less than five years.”

The case is Hart v. Hart, B338817.