What If a Judge Doesn’t Believe You in a North Carolina DVPO Hearing? (Part 1 of 2)

Are you heading into a domestic violence protective order hearing? For many in this situation, one worry tends to underpin many others – and it’s one they may be afraid to say out loud:

What if the judge doesn’t believe me in court?

It’s a fair concern, especially when your mental and physical safety is at risk. In DVPO cases, the court’s assessment of your credibility can play an outsized role in the outcome.

To show just how much credibility matters, let’s look at a North Carolina DVPO case – 2024’s Brown v. Rodriguez – that puts the power of credibility and testimony in full light.

Note: Brown v. Rodriguez is an unpublished opinion, so it doesn’t serve as binding legal precedent in North Carolina. However, the case and its outcome are still useful for understanding how NC courts may handle these types of cases.

What is a DVPO?

A domestic violence protective order – a DVPO, or sometimes known as a 50B order – is a civil order that a court can enter to protect an individual from the actions of an intimate partner or family member.

Under North Carolina law (N.C. Gen. Stat. § 50B-1), the term “domestic violence” can mean:

• Attempting or intentionally causing bodily injury to an individual
• Causing an individual to fear imminent serious bodily injury or engaging in continued harassment that causes “substantial emotional distress”
• An individual committing certain sexual offenses against another

If the judge in the case finds – by a preponderance of the evidence – that domestic violence occurred, the law says the court shall grant the DVPO. That word “shall” is important here. It sounds like a guarantee but, before that can happen, the judge must be convinced that domestic violence occurred.

What Happened in Brown V. Rodriguez?

In Brown v. Rodriguez, the plaintiff filed for a DVPO based on a seven-year relationship with years of alleged abuse. According to the plaintiff, the abuse included coercion and non-consensual conduct. They also reported a lack of support throughout several pregnancy losses.

The court granted a temporary order the same day and set a hearing on a full one-year order.

At the ordered hearing, the case fell apart on the witness stand. After listening to the plaintiff’s testimony and watching the cross-examination, the judge determined that the plaintiff was “dishonest during her testimony” and that her “credibility did not survive cross-examination.”

The judge concluded that the plaintiff had proceeded on “old allegations that appeared to have no imminent threat of harm”, and denied the one-year DVPO. The plaintiff then appealed that decision.

Our next blog will review the appeal of this case and the results of that appeal. Woodruff Family Law Group handles both DVPO cases and appeals, so please contact us if you are facing either of these situations.