In re Marriage of F.M. and M.M.

After F.M. (plaintiff) petitioned to dissolve her marriage to M.M. (defendant), the couple continued to live together with their six children. About a year later, F.M. applied for a domestic-violence restraining order (DVRO) against M.M. She alleged that M.M. repeatedly called her vulgar names in front of the children and threatened to kill her, and that he sometimes struck her, took her phone, and demanded that she leave the house. F.M. also alleged that M.M. had moved their eldest daughter to live with another woman without F.M.’s permission. Based on the alleged conduct, F.M. sought a DVRO ordering M.M. to move out of the house, not commit any abuse, and not travel with the children. The trial court granted a temporary restraining order (TRO) prohibiting M.M. from abusing F.M. and requiring him to stay five yards away from her. The court denied the other requested relief pending a hearing. At the hearing, the court adopted a counselor’s recommendation that F.M. be granted sole custody of the children. The court also determined that the tension between F.M. and M.M. stemmed from ongoing cohabitation. The court ordered F.M. to move out of the house before a second hearing. In the interim, M.M. was arrested for allegedly pushing F.M. when she returned to the house to collect belongings. At the second hearing, M.M. admitted to the arrest but denied pushing F.M. and said no criminal charges were filed. F.M. said she intended to press charges, and the court continued the hearing again to allow F.M. to do so. Before the third hearing, F.M. again asked the court to order M.M. to vacate the family home, stating that she and the children were living out of her car. She also claimed that M.M. threatened to kill her for withdrawing money from a joint account. At the final hearing, the court declined to issue a DVRO, concluding that a DVRO could be based only on events occurring before the DVRO request and that F.M.’s evidence of domestic violence before that point was uncorroborated.