Hiraeth
VIP Member
Hi all. I'm so terribly sorry for the delay in typing this up. I had to deal with a serious family medical issue and was not able to be online for days. My apologies. 
Here is a link to the summary of the court transcript. Not much new in the way of evidence, but everyone claiming that the DVRO violates Alice's First Amendment rights is welcome to read the judge's reasoning. Ioan also testified briefly at the hearing, all of which is summarized below. Enjoy!
Here is a link to the summary of the court transcript. Not much new in the way of evidence, but everyone claiming that the DVRO violates Alice's First Amendment rights is welcome to read the judge's reasoning. Ioan also testified briefly at the hearing, all of which is summarized below. Enjoy!
Summary of Hearing on Request for Domestic Violence Restraining Order
Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles
August 2, 2022
Appearing for Petitioner: Attorneys Anne Kiley and Katherine Heersema.
Also present were Petitioner Ioan Gruffudd and protected person Bianca Wallace.
No appearances made on behalf of Respondent. (Alice Evans was not present and no attorney
appeared on her behalf.)
The hearing begins with the judge noting that Alice’s attorney was present when the hearing was
continued to August 2, 2022, from June 14, 2022. The judge noted that Alice had notice of the
hearing being scheduled for August 2, but neither Alice nor her counsel had appeared at the
hearing that day.
The judge said that he had reviewed the request for the Domestic Violence Restraining Order
and the Temporary Restraining Order, and he was inclined to grant the request for the restraining
order, but he had two questions (discussed below). The first question related to the length of
time that Anne Kiley was requesting for the restraining order (the judge assumed 5 years), and
the second question related to First Amendment concerns. The judge covered the second
question first.
With regard to the supplemental request Ioan filed, the judge was comfortable granting an order
restraining Alice from posting Ioan’s text messages or other communications to their children, or
the children’s text messages to Ioan, on social media, and restraining Alice from contacting
Ioan’s employers. But the judge said he was uncertain about the request that Alice not make any
posts on social media disparaging Ioan or Bianca. The judge said that posts that constitute
disturbing the peace of Ioan and Bianca were covered by the existing restraining order, but the
judge was concerned about the First Amendment.
2
The judge said some of the posts Alice has made are “clearly harassment.” However, his opinion
is that some of Alice’s posts come closer to being potentially protected speech in that she’s
commenting on the litigation, albeit sometimes in “colorful terms.”
Anne Kiley, Ioan’s attorney, responded that there was a case (In re Marriage of Candiotti, 34
Cal.App.4th 718, at page 726) that ruled that the Court can make an order that a parent not make
disparaging comments about the other parent either within the presence or within the hearing of
the children, and Ioan’s concern is that Alice is using her social media accounts, with well over
70,000 followers, to disparage Ioan, and at least one of their children “follows” Alice on social
media.
Anne Kiley agreed that the temporary restraining order does restrain much of what Alice has
done, including using her Instagram account to directly communicate with Ioan and Bianca, and
saying things like “you’re a pussy.” Anne Kiley argued that the Candiotti case provides
precedent for the judge to restrict Alice’s statements on social media. The judge responded that
he understood the argument, but that disparaging Ioan on social media being deemed as being “in
front of the children” is too expansive. The judge was comfortable restraining Alice’s speech to
the extent it was “harassing or disturbing the peace of Petitioner and the other protected person.”
The judge said that limiting “disparaging” speech was “awfully broad” and would potentially
encompass things that Alice was entitled to say. The judge wasn’t saying that Alice couldn’t
disparage the judicial process. He said, “She can disparage me, for example. Clearly protected
by the First Amendment.”
Anne Kiley brought up another case, Molinaro v. Molinaro, 33 Cal.App.5th 824, which held that
an order restraining someone from posting on social media with regard to the litigation was too
broad, but the court held that a narrowly tailored order speaking about the disparaging comments
and the children would be more appropriate.
The judge asked if there was any additional evidence that Anne Kiley wanted to present. She
responded that she wanted to move Ioan’s declaration and the Exhibits thereto, A through P, that
were filed on February 15, 2022, into evidence, as well as move Ioan’s declaration of July 25,
2022, into evidence. Anne Kiley stated that an exhibit list was filed with the court the day
3
before. Exhibits 1 though 16 are the exhibits that were filed February 15, 2022, and Anne Kiley
had additional exhibits, Exhibits 17 through 71, which she had brought to court with her on a
flash drive. That evidence (as yet unseen) consists of a series of text messages, Our Family
Wizard messages, voice recordings, and social media postings that Alice has made since the
restraining order was issued.
The judge took a short break to look at the Candiotti and Molinaro cases. A short recess was
taken.
After the recess, the judge had two additional questions. His first question was to ask Anne
Kiley to point him to where the evidence was with respect to Alice’s communications with
Ioan’s employer. The evidence was in Ioan’s declaration, but Anne Kiley said that Ioan could
testify right then. The judge asked Ioan to stand up and testify for the Court.
Ioan was sworn in by the judge’s clerk. Ioan testified that he believes that Alice has
communicated with his employers, not since January of 2022, but in 2021, Alice did contact his
employer repeatedly. Ioan testified that he recently took a trip to Monaco to the Television
Festival, and, while there, the producer of the television series that Ioan shot in the South of
France told him that he had been contacted at least seven (7) times by Alice Evans, in letters both
in English and French. The producer chose not to alert Ioan of the letters at the time because he
felt that it would be disturbing Ioan’s peace and his ability to work there. Ioan testified that this
disturbed him and it was shocking to him, and that it concerned him with regard to obtaining
future employment. The judge stated that he was going to exclude Ioan’s testimony on the
ground that it was hearsay.
The judge reiterated his second question, which was what the length of the restraining order
should be. The judge assumed that Ioan would ask for a length of 5 years. Anne Kiley
responded that, given the volume of communications prior to the restraining order and the
continued harassment and disturbance of the peace of Ioan and Bianca after the restraining order,
they were asking that the restraining order be granted for three (3) years with the understanding
that they could come back to court and seek renewal.
4
The judge stated that the Court finds that Ioan has satisfied his burden of proof, proving by
preponderance of the evidence that Alice has engaged in a course of conduct that constitutes
harassment of Ioan and Bianca, and that constitutes disturbing the peace of Ioan and Bianca. The
judge stated that there was sufficient evidence already in the record to support the issuance of the
restraining order, and that he was not ruling on the exhibits that Anne Kiley brought with her on
the flash drive because he hadn’t reviewed them and didn’t need them to make his order, since he
already had enough evidence.
The judge ruled that the court would issue a 3-year restraining order with the same terms as the
temporary restraining order, plus the following two terms: that Alice shall not make any posts on
a social media account, including but not limited to Instagram and Twitter accounts, harassing or
disturbing the peace of Ioan and Bianca, and that Alice shall not post Ioan’s text messages or any
other communications to the parties’ children or the children’s text messages or any other
communications to Ioan on any social media account, including but not limited to Twitter and
Instagram accounts. The court denied the request that Alice be restrained from contacting Ioan’s
employers. In addition, the order shall provide that Alice is not prohibited from commenting on
this proceeding on social media provided that such comments do not constitute harassment or
disturbing the peace of Ioan and Bianca.
The judge also, after ruling, made clear that Ioan did not ask for any custody orders in
connection with the DVRO, and that Ioan’s declaration of February 15, 2022, plus the exhibits
and declaration filed July 25, 2022, are all moved into evidence.
), and the entire contents are in my summary.