The California Court of Appeal has ruled on a significant spousal support case involving domestic violence. The court's decision, filed on August 28, 2026, affects how courts interpret spousal support in marriages where one partner has a history of domestic violence. This ruling is particularly important for individuals navigating similar circumstances in divorce proceedings.
The case, known as the Marriage of Traweek (B336738), centers on Scott and Candice Traweek, who were married for 18 years before separating in 2021. Following their separation, Candice filed for divorce, and Scott sought a domestic violence restraining order against her. The court's ruling highlights the complexities involved in awarding spousal support when domestic violence is a factor.
Scott Traweek argued that the trial court made an error in awarding spousal support to Candice, despite her conviction for domestic violence against him. He contended that the court failed to properly apply Family Code section 4325, which generally prohibits spousal support for a spouse convicted of domestic violence. However, the court found that Candice successfully rebutted this presumption.
The court noted that Candice had not worked during their marriage and had no current marketable skills. She had devoted her time to caring for their home and children. The trial court considered various factors, including the length of their marriage and the economic circumstances of both parties, before making its decision.
During the trial, both Scott and Candice provided testimony regarding their relationship. Scott had sought a restraining order against Candice in 2021, citing past incidents of domestic violence. However, evidence presented during the trial indicated that the couple had reconciled after the incident, engaging in flirtatious communications and spending time together. This complicated the narrative of their relationship and influenced the court's ruling.
On November 2, 2023, the trial court issued a statement of decision regarding spousal support. The court acknowledged Candice's conviction but emphasized the need to consider the broader context of their marriage. The court ruled that while the presumption against awarding spousal support due to domestic violence existed, Candice had sufficiently rebutted it by demonstrating her lack of income and marketable skills.
The court stated, "[Candice] has rebutted the Family Code section 4325 presumption," highlighting that the circumstances of their marriage warranted support despite the domestic violence conviction.
In its ruling, the court ordered Scott to pay Candice $4,000 per month in spousal support for a period of six years, ending on October 31, 2029. The court did not grant any retroactive support or additional payments based on Scott's overtime income. This decision reflects a balance between the need to support Candice while acknowledging the history of domestic violence in their relationship.
The ruling is significant as it sets a precedent for how courts may handle spousal support in cases involving domestic violence. It emphasizes that while the law generally disfavors awarding support to a convicted abuser, there are circumstances where support may still be granted if the injured spouse can demonstrate a compelling need.
Moving forward, this ruling may influence similar cases in California and beyond. It underscores the importance of considering the individual circumstances of each case rather than applying blanket rules. The court's decision may provide a framework for future cases involving domestic violence and spousal support, ensuring that victims are not left in financial hardship due to their circumstances.
Scott Traweek has the option to appeal the court's decision, but details regarding any potential appeal were not available in the court filing. As of now, the ruling stands, and both parties are responsible for their own legal costs.