(a)Upon filing the petition and issuance of the summons and upon personal service of the petition and summons on the respondent or upon waiver and acceptance of service by the respondent, the temporary restraining order under this part shall be in effect against the parties until the final judgment is entered or the petition is dismissed, or until further order of the court.
(b)The temporary restraining order is enforceable in any place in this state, but is not enforceable by a law enforcement agency of a political subdivision unless that law enforcement agency has received mailed notice of the order or has otherwise received a copy of the order or the officer enforcing the order has been shown a copy of the order.
(c)A willful and knowing violation of the order included in the summons by removing a child from the state without the written consent of the other party or an order of the court is punishable as
provided in Section 278.5 of the Penal Code. A willful and knowing violation of any of the other orders included in the summons is punishable as provided in Section 273.6 of the Penal Code.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
3
cases, 1999–2016 · leading case:
Mitchell v. Mitchell, 76 Cal. App. 4th 1378 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999).
Mitchell v. Mitchell, 76 Cal. App. 4th 1378 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999).
“Charles’s first argument is that the Legislature placed the provisions requiring the summons to include both the automatic temporary restraining order and the Hilke/Blair/Allen warning in the same statute, Family Code section 2040.”
West Coast Life Ins. v. Clark, 24 F. Supp. 3d 933 (C.D. Cal. 2014).
· cites it 2× “Cal. Fam. Code § 233 (a). Decedent requested a second change of beneficiary form from WCLIC in 2011, but there is no evidence that he ever filled out that form.”
West Coast Life Ins. Co. v. Kathleen Paterson, 650 F. App'x 439 (9th Cir. 2016).
“2d 322, 328 (1941); Cal. Family Code §§ 233 (a), 2040(a)(3). Applying that exception in this case would lead to an absurd result: any party to California divorce proceedings could invoke the “powerlessness” exception to make a beneficiary change, thereby rendering the…”
Cal. Family Code § 233(a): 1 case
West Coast Life Ins. v. Clark, 24 F. Supp. 3d 933 (C.D. Cal. 2014).
“Cal. Fam. Code § 233 (a). Decedent requested a second change of beneficiary form from WCLIC in 2011, but there is no evidence that he ever filled out that form.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.