The California Court of Appeal has upheld a domestic violence temporary restraining order (DVTRO) against Drexwell M. Jones, affirming the decision made by a lower court. This ruling, filed on November 9, 2026, follows a series of hearings regarding allegations of domestic violence made by Jones' estranged wife, Michelle Hattingh. The court's decision is significant as it highlights the legal standards for issuing restraining orders in domestic violence cases.

The case, identified by docket number F090953, arose from a dispute between Jones and Hattingh following the breakdown of their marriage. The court's ruling affects not only the immediate parties involved but also sets a precedent for how domestic violence allegations are handled in California courts.

Background

Drexwell M. Jones and Michelle Hattingh were married in 2018 and have two children together. Their relationship deteriorated over time, leading to significant conflict. On November 3, 2025, Jones returned home to find Hattingh had taken their children to an undisclosed location. This prompted Jones to file an emergency ex parte petition for custody and support on November 5, 2025. On the same day, Hattingh filed a request for a domestic violence restraining order, which included a request for a DVTRO.

The trial court granted Jones’ emergency petition for custody on November 7, 2025, which included provisions that prohibited him from traveling with the children outside of Stanislaus County. However, the court also issued Hattingh’s request for a DVTRO, which listed her as the protected person and included restrictions on Jones’ custody and visitation rights. This conflicting situation led to further legal proceedings and hearings scheduled for December 2025 and beyond.

The Ruling

The Court of Appeal ruled on the appeal filed by Jones, who argued that the trial court abused its discretion in issuing the DVTRO. Jones claimed that the court failed to provide timely notice and a hearing, exceeded its authority by separating the DVTRO from the domestic violence restraining order proceedings, and violated his due process rights. However, the court found that the November 7, 2025, order issuing the DVTRO was indeed appealable under California law.

The court ruled, "The November 7, 2025, order issuing the DVTRO is an appealable order pursuant to this section."

Ultimately, the court affirmed the trial court's decision, stating that the evidence presented by Hattingh met the legal standards for issuing a DVTRO. The court noted that the Domestic Violence Prevention Act (DVPA) allows for temporary restraining orders based on reasonable proof of past acts of abuse, which Hattingh provided through her declaration.

Impact

This ruling underscores the importance of protecting individuals from domestic violence and reinforces the legal framework surrounding restraining orders in California. The decision affirms that allegations of domestic abuse, even without physical evidence, can warrant protective measures when a credible threat is perceived. It also illustrates the court's discretion in evaluating the credibility of testimonies and declarations in domestic violence cases.

The ruling may influence similar cases in the future, as it clarifies the standards for issuing and appealing domestic violence restraining orders. It emphasizes that courts can act swiftly to protect individuals who may be at risk, even in the absence of corroborating evidence.

What's Next

The court's decision can potentially be appealed to a higher court, but details on any such plans were not available in the court filing. The ongoing legal proceedings between Jones and Hattingh regarding custody and visitation rights are also expected to continue as the DVRO hearing remains pending, currently scheduled for January 2027.