Page 3
Court of Appeal:
Use of Foul Language Directed at Spouse Won’t Justify DVRO
By a MetNews Staff Writer
|
|
|
|
JENN DELEO |
DEAN DELEO |
Use of foul language, without more, will not give rise to issuance of a stay-away order, Div. Six of the Court of Appeal for this district held yesterday.
The unpublished opinion by Presiding Justice Arthur Gilbert affirms a decision by Ventura Superior Court Judge Michele M. Castillo denying a domestic violence restraining order (“DVRO”) sought by actress/model Jennifer (“Jenn”) DeLeo, pursuant to the Domestic Violence Prevention Act (“DVPA”), against her her husband, guitarist/actor/composer Dean DeLeo.
Dean DeLeo is associatewd with the rock band Stone Temple Pilots.
Contentions in Appeal
West Los Angeles attorney Robert L. Schibel argued on behalf of appellant Jenn Deleo that “using vulgar language to demean, degrade or insult someone constitutes abuse under the DVPA.”
In support of that proposition, he cited the 2021 decision by the First District’s Div. One in In re Marriage of FM. & M.M.
Schibel pointed to text messages to the woman from her husband containing such comments as “Go to hell where you belong” and others that included profanity.
The lawyer recited:
“…Jenniffer testified to numerous different instances of abusive conduct on Dean’s part, occurring over the course of their relationship, wherein he repeatedly used demeaning and vulgar language toward her, and even did so multiple times in the presence of their daughter….The bulk of this evidence was undisputed as Dean admitted to this conduct, via multiple text messages submitted into evidence, and even during his testimony.”
Gilbert’s Opinion
Gilbert responded:
“There may be cases wnere using language will support granting a DVRO. but the trial court could reasonably find this was not such a case. From Dean’s testimony it could reasonably infer that he made some foul remarks after being provoked by Jennifer on a couple of occasions. The court also found Jennifer was the “aggressor.” Dean’s conduct was not comparable to In re Marriage of F.M. & M.M. The court could find it was not the type of conduct that would place Jennifer in fear of bodily injury, restrict her freedom, and was not a pattern of threatening or abusive conduct that would support a DVRO.”
In F.M. & M.M., he noted, the husband had made threats to kill his wife and had physically assaulted her.
There, then-Justice Gabriel P. Sanchez (now a member of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals) wrote:
“Threats on a person’s life, demeaning a person in front of their children with vulgar and degrading language, physically beating a person, and seeking to exercise control over a person by taking away their phone, are all actionable forms of abuse under the DVPA.”
Victimization Not Shown
Gilbert remarked in yesterday’s opinion:
“Courts properly distinguish between mere name calling and more serious conduct….Moreover, Jennifer had to prove how Dean’s remarks ‘victimized’ her.”
He said no such showing was made.
The case is Jennifer D. v. Dean D., B340999.
Although the strife between the DeLeos has been widely reported and their full names were used throughout court proceedings, Div. Six used an initial, only, in place of their surname.
Copyright 2025, Metropolitan News Company