A California appellate court recently upheld a domestic violence restraining order (DVRO) against Aaron Hernandez while reversing a modification of child custody that had been granted to Audrey Chirip-Riggs. This decision, filed on November 5, 2026, affects the ongoing custody arrangement for their child, N.H., and clarifies the legal standards surrounding domestic violence and child custody in California.

The court ruled in case number E086202 that there was substantial evidence supporting the DVRO but found that the trial court had erred in modifying child custody without proper notice or request from either party. This ruling is significant as it reinforces the importance of due process in family law cases, especially when it comes to the sensitive issues of domestic violence and child custody.

Background

The parties involved in this case are Audrey Chirip-Riggs (Mother) and Aaron Hernandez (Father). They are the parents of N.H., who was born in 2024. Mother and Father were never married and lived together for a brief period before separating. In November 2024, a family court had ordered joint legal and physical custody of N.H., allowing both parents to share time with their child.

However, the relationship between Mother and Father deteriorated, leading Mother to file a DVRO petition against Father on January 24, 2025. She alleged multiple incidents of emotional and physical abuse, including threats and coercive behavior. Following her petition, the court granted a temporary restraining order while the case was reviewed.

During the DVRO hearing, Mother presented evidence of Father’s abusive behavior, including incidents where he allegedly threatened her and damaged property. Father denied the allegations and claimed that Mother was lying, but the court ultimately found sufficient evidence to support Mother’s claims.

The Ruling

The California Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s decision to grant the DVRO against Father, stating that there was substantial evidence of past abuse. The court noted, “the trial court found that a DVRO was necessary against Father on the grounds he was disturbing Mother’s peace, that is, her mental and emotional calm.” This ruling underscores the court’s commitment to protecting individuals from domestic violence.

However, the appellate court reversed the trial court’s decision to modify child custody. The court found that neither party had requested a change in custody, and there had been no notice that custody would be discussed during the DVRO hearing. The ruling stated, “the trial court abused its discretion in modifying child custody based on incorrect legal assumptions.” This part of the ruling emphasizes the need for proper legal procedures to be followed in custody matters.

Impact

This ruling has significant implications for domestic violence cases and child custody arrangements in California. It affirms that courts must provide adequate notice and allow parties to present their cases fully before making decisions that can drastically change custody arrangements. The decision also highlights the importance of protecting victims of domestic violence while ensuring that due process rights are upheld for both parents.

The court’s ruling reinforces the legal standards surrounding domestic violence and child custody, particularly the need for clear requests and notice when modifying custody arrangements. This case may serve as a precedent for future cases involving similar issues, ensuring that the rights of both parents are respected while prioritizing the safety and well-being of children.

What's Next

Following this ruling, it is unclear if Father will seek further appeals or if there are any related cases pending. The appellate court’s decision leaves the existing child custody order in place, reverting to the previous arrangement until further action is taken by either party. Details were not available in the court filing regarding any potential next steps from either party.