We’ve written about her here, but it turns out that Judge Hockenhull-Stone engages in a reckless pattern of mishandling abuse cases.
In a pivotal ruling that underscores the protections afforded to California’s elderly under the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act, the First District Court of Appeal reversed Tamiza Hockenhull-Stone’s denial of an elder abuse protective order renewal. This decision highlights the necessity for judges to consider all available evidence, including past acts of abuse, when determining the renewal of protective orders.
We covered a case involving domestic violence, more specifically, intimate partner violence. This case involves elder abuse.
Case Background
Carol Ruth Denney, a 70-year-old resident of Berkeley, California, sought protection under the Elder Abuse Act against Joe Wright, a healthcare worker caring for another tenant in her apartment complex. In June 2020, Denney requested a restraining order, citing multiple incidents of harassment and threats from Wright, including physical intimidation and vandalism.
Following a hearing in October 2020, the Alameda County Superior Court issued a one-year restraining order, requiring Wright to stay at least 100 yards away from Denney, except when assisting his client, Frank C. Denney later sought to renew this order permanently, presenting substantial evidence of continued harassment.
Trial Court Denial and Appeal
In September 2021, Denney filed for a renewal of the protective order. Despite presenting extensive evidence, including photographs, videos, and witness testimonies, Alameda County Superior Court Judge Tamiza Hockenhull denied the renewal. Hockenhull’s decision focused primarily on incidents occurring after the issuance of the original order, disregarding the past acts of abuse that initially justified the protective order.
Denney appealed the decision, arguing that the trial court misapplied the legal standard by failing to consider the full scope of evidence, including the substantial documentation of past abuse.
Appellate Court Decision
On February 27, 2024, a three-justice panel of Division Two of the First District Court of Appeal reversed Hockenhull’s decision. In an unpublished opinion authored by Mendocino Superior Court Judge Cindee F. Mayfield, the appellate court emphasized that the trial court erred by not considering all relevant evidence, particularly the past abuse that justified the initial order.
Judge Mayfield highlighted that under the Elder Abuse Act, a protective order can be renewed without showing further abuse since the issuance of the original order. The existence of the initial order and the underlying facts should be sufficient to provide the necessary proof for renewal. By focusing solely on the events after the initial order, the trial court neglected the substantial evidence that demonstrated Denney’s reasonable apprehension of future harm.
Here’s Where Things Get Interesting
Sound Familiar?
The court allowed Carol to call her friend Harvey S. Harvey described an incident where Wright aggressively yelled at Carol about taking the “racks for the barbecue.” Harvey stood between the parties during the interaction because he was concerned for Carol’s safety. He also mentioned that Carol called him on various occasions complaining about Wright’s behavior, and that he had observed some of the property damage Carol alleged.
The court did not allow the parties to present the testimony of additional witnesses due to time constraints and because it had “got[ten] a sense of” the parties’ character during the hearing.
After hearing Frank C.’s testimony, the trial court commented, “It’s a little after 12:00 and I need to take all of that into consideration and rule.” A few minutes later, the court told Harvey S.: “Okay, I’m going to stop it there…. Actually, we’re getting ready to close down so you can go ahead and wait outside, if you wish.”
If you recall, in our coverage of another case, Judge Hockenhull did the same thing. She refused to allow a party to call witnesses and present evidence due to time constraints, instead of just simply continuing the matter.
More shockingly…
The court’s admonition to Wright compounds the error. An admonition of the restrained party at a renewal hearing indicates that the protected party had something to fear. (See Cueto v. Dozier (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 550, 562; In re Marriage of F.M. &M.M. (2021) 65 Cal.App.5th 106, 120.)