Judge Issuing DVRO Exceeded Bounds

Thursday, April 2, 2026

Page 1

Judge Issuing DVRO Exceeded Bounds—C.A.

By a MetNews Staff Writer

A Los Angeles Superior Court judge went overboard in crafting a stay-away order to an abusive husband by including broad protections for the couple’s three teenage sons without ascertaining their wishes, the Court of Appeal for this district has held, also saying that the two family dogs and three chickens should not have been shielded from prospective harm absent any evidence of mistreatment of them by the respondent.

The unpublished opinion, filed Monday, was authored by Presiding Justice Lee Edmon of Div. Three. It partially reverses a domestic violence restraining order (“DVRO”) granted by Judge Josh Freeman Stinn in favor of the wife, marriage/family therapist Andrea Mendoza, against the husband, soccer coach Paul Mendoza.

The opinion provides instructions on how to proceed on remand.

Three Sons

The sons were aged 18, 15, and 12 at the time of last year’ order. Edmon said the 18-year-old was not improperly included in the order because he has attained the age of majority, noting that adults other than the petitioner may be included in protective orders, but because the evidence points to only two instances of violence toward him, both in the distant past.

The breadth of the prohibition, she added, was excessive.

Edmon wrote:

“The trial court did not explain why these incidents, which occurred in the family home when Rylan was a child, constituted good cause to issue an order of protection even after Rylan reached adulthood, Paul was removed from the home, and Rylan was moving out of state for college. We are troubled, moreover, that Rylan was included as a protected party without any evidence of his wishes, and that the DVRO prevented Paul from any contact with Rylan by any means, including telephone and email. It therefore prevented Paul from seeing, calling, and emailing Rylan, and from receiving calls and emails from Rylan. In short, the order completely severed the relationship between Paul and Rylan.

“For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the evidence before the trial court did not support the inclusion of Rylan as a protected party, and we therefore will order Rylan stricken from the DVRO. Of course, should Rylan desire protection from his father, he is free to seek a DVRO on his own behalf.”

Younger Sons

With respect to the younger sons, contact was to be permitted, under the DVRO, only in the course of supervised visits, to be overseen by someone chosen by the wife and whose services were to be financed by the husband. Edmon provided a reminder that under the Family Code, children old enough that their wishes as to visitation conditions must be taken into account, and noted that the requisite inquiry by Shinn was not undertaken.

The jurist said:

“On the present record, the DVRO was overbroad. While the DVRO’s broad provisions might be appropriate in some circumstances—for example, if the children told the court that they feared having overnights with Paul, being alone with him, or having phone or text contact—they were unwarranted on the present record. Nor should the court have ordered Paul to pay for a professional monitor without determining if he could afford to do so.”

The father claims to be homeless in the aftermath of Shinn’s order barring him from the family abode ahd is without funds.

Edmon added that Shinn “should not have prevented Paul’s access to the children’s education and health records.”

The protective order extended to the family’s dogs, Milo and Rambo, and three chickens. The presiding justice set forth:

“Here, as Paul notes, there was no evidence suggesting that Paul ever injured, or threatened to injure, the family’s dogs and chickens. Indeed, the only testimony regarding the pets concerned who typically was responsible for feeding and bathing them. The trial court therefore erred in ordering Paul to stay away from the family’s pets.”

Liberality Exhibited

Div. Three displayed liberality toward both spouses in its handling of the appeal. Edmon noted that Paul Mendoza failed to include a summary of facts in support of the judgment, which could be construed as a forfeiture of the contentions on appeal, but said:

“Nonetheless, because this appeal concerns not just Andrea and Paul, but also their children, we will address Paul’s contentions on the merits.”

The wife filed no appellate brief and, the presiding justice noted, some courts of appeal would regard that as an implied consent to a reversal, but said that the “better rule” is to examine the record t see if the judgment should stand. She declared that “[t]his approach gives full effect to the presumption that the judgment or order appealed from is correct and that, in order to prevail, the appellant has the burden to not only overcome that presumption but also demonstrate reversible error.”

Also, the husband represented himself on appeal—up to the time of oral argument when Sheri Tanaka, a lawyer licensed to practice in California but whose office is in Honolulu, showed up. She was granted leave, from the bench, to proceed.

The case is Andrea M. v. Paul M., B346663