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

Our last blog reviewed the underlying facts of the case Brown v. Rodriguez, a 2024 unpublished opinion. This blog will explain what happened when the case was appealed.

Why Did the Plaintiff’s Appeal Fail in Court?

After the judge’s decision, the plaintiff raised two challenges on appeal – both of which the Court of Appeals rejected:

“The judge didn’t make enough findings.”

The plaintiff argued that the judge didn’t make enough findings before deciding. The appellate court disagreed. A trial judge doesn’t have to record every piece of evidence, only enough findings of “ultimate fact” to show the basis for a decision. In Brown v. Rodriguez, the judge explained why he disbelieved her, which was enough to review.

“The judge used the wrong standard.”

The plaintiff also argued that the court wrongly demanded proof of an imminent threat to her person and measured her fear by an objective test. In this case, the appellate court agreed that the fear test is subjective – because the question is whether an individual themselves feared imminent serious injury, not whether a hypothetical “reasonable person” would.

However, that point was not enough to rescue the appeal. As the trial judge found the plaintiff not credible in her testimony, he was entitled to conclude that she had not proven that she herself feared imminent harm.

Despite these two challenges to the judge’s decision, the denial stood.

What Does Brown v. Rodriguez Teach Others in DVPO Cases?

The lesson to learn in Brown v. Rodriguez is a hard but honest one. It’s also a lesson that shows that the best way to avoid walking into the courtroom with fear is to have a strategy beforehand.

• In DVPO, credibility plays an outsized role in the outcome: A judge will be watching your testimony to determine whether you’re credible. Appellate courts give that call from the judge enormous deference.
• Subjective standards still require belief: Even though the plaintiff proved that the fear test was subjective, “Did you fear harm?” still requires the judge to trust your word.
• Recent and specific (imminent) beats old or vague: DVPOs are forward-looking orders. Years-old allegations without current threats are on weak footing.
• Corroboration can change case outcomes: Any documentation of corroboration can help a judge determine your credibility – this includes texts, photos, voicemails, medical/police records, and more.

It’s important to note that none of the above are a verdict on the plaintiff in the case. They’re a map of where cases are won and lost – and they show just how important it is to come prepared to defend your case with credible evidence.

Are You Preparing for a DVPO Hearing in North Carolina?

If you find yourself in immediate danger of physical harm, it’s essential that you contact 911 immediately. If you’re preparing for a 50B hearing, the way you prepare documentation and how your account is presented can shape the outcome of your case.

At Woodruff Family Law Group, our team helps North Carolina residents build clear and well-documented protective order cases – and we stand next to them in court to help them present themselves properly.

Contact our Greensboro family law team to schedule a consultation.