A "friends with benefits" relationship may or may not qualify as a "dating relationship" under California law for purposes of application of domestic violence law. (M.A. v. B. F. (February 5, 2024) G061598.) The Fourth District Division Three summarized the issue and its holding as follows:
We are asked here to determine whether a relationship characterized in modern parlance — and by the plaintiff in this case — as “friends with benefits” constitutes a dating relationship under Family Code section 6210, so as to support a tort claim for domestic violence. Whether such a dating relationship exists is inherently a fact-intensive inquiry, not susceptible to resolution based on shorthand labels or descriptors. We therefore do not hold a “friends with benefits” relationship is necessarily a dating relationship or that it can never be one. We simply conclude, on the specific record before us, substantial evidence supports the trial court’s finding that the relationship between plaintiff M.A. and defendant B.F. was not a dating relationship within the meaning of the relevant statutes. We affirm. (Id., pp. 1-2.)
This issue arises because California's Civil Code section 1708.6(a) provides the tort of "domestic violence" requires a "relationship." Further, Penal Code section 13700 defines domestic violence to include "dating or engagement relationship" and Family Code section 6210 has a similar definition.
The majority in M.A. affirmed the trial court's judgment in favor of B.A. under a "substantial evidence" standard of review, showing deference to its review of the evidence. It therefore found the trial court had the discretion to find, or, in the case here, to not find, a "friends with benefits" situation involved a "relationship," noting "different inferences" could be drawn from the facts. (Id., p. 13.) The majority also noted section 6210 uses the phrase "frequent, intimate associations” but does not define such.
Justice Sanchez dissented from the majority opinion written by Justice Gooding. The dissent concluded that under the facts here plaintiff M.A. fell under "the category of victims the law was meant to protect" no matter the on-and-off nature of the encounters between her and defendant. (Id., p. 6.)
What the opinion does not explain
It is unclear from the record here why the plaintiff did not also bring a tort claim for assault and battery or other related torts, which claims do not require she prove the parties were in a "relationship." It is, for example, unclear from the opinion whether such a claim would be time-barred. Footnote seven only states that:
We note M.A. had remedies available to her under the law to seek redress for her injuries, including tort claims against B.F. for assault and battery.
Scroll down below to send us a question or a comment.
No comments:
Post a Comment