The digital age has fundamentally reshaped how we interact, but it has also introduced new complexities to legal issues, particularly in the realm of domestic relations and personal safety. The recent California Court of Appeal decision in People v. Tafoya (2025) serves as a critical reminder that online conduct, specifically Facebook posts, is not immune from legal scrutiny when it forms part of a pattern of stalking. This ruling has significant implications for how stalking and domestic violence cases, especially those involving speech-based abuse, are handled in California family law under the Domestic Violence Prevention Act (DVPA), Family Code section 6320(a).
Understanding the People v. Tafoya Case: Key Facts
To grasp the full impact of this landmark decision, it’s essential to understand the factual background that led to the California Court of Appeal’s ruling.
A Pattern of Stalking and Restraining Order Violations
The case of People v. Tafoya involved a defendant who engaged in a persistent and disturbing pattern of stalking behavior directed at the victim over a period of five years. This relentless pursuit included repeatedly violating restraining orders designed to protect the victim and her family. The defendant employed various methods to track the victim, creating an environment of constant fear and apprehension.
Fraudulent Paternity and Custody Orders
Beyond direct stalking, the defendant escalated his campaign of harassment by fraudulently filing a paternity action. He falsely claimed to be the father of one of the victim’s children, and through falsified proof of service, he obtained a default judgment against the unsuspecting victim. This deceit allowed him to secure illegitimate custody and visitation orders. Armed with these fraudulent orders, the defendant then attempted to abduct the child, demonstrating the extreme lengths to which he would go to terrorize the victim.
The Role of Facebook Posts in the Stalking Conviction
A crucial aspect of the stalking conviction in People v. Tafoya was the defendant’s use of Facebook. He made numerous posts falsely portraying himself as the child’s estranged father, ostensibly seeking reconciliation. While these posts were not overtly threatening on their own, one particularly alarming post explicitly stated his intention to pick up the child from school. This seemingly innocuous statement, when viewed within the broader context of his prolonged stalking and fraudulent actions, became a key piece of evidence in proving his malicious intent.
Court’s Ruling: When Social Media Posts Are Not Protected Speech
The core of the defendant’s appeal rested on the argument that his Facebook posts were constitutionally protected speech, contending they lacked the “true threats” necessary for a stalking conviction. However, the California Court of Appeal firmly rejected this claim.
Facebook Posts as Part of a “Credible Threat” Course of Conduct
The court ruled that the defendant’s Facebook posts were not isolated expressions but rather an integral part of a larger “course of conduct” that collectively constituted a “credible threat” under Penal Code section 646.9. The court emphasized that the determination of a “credible threat” does not solely depend on whether individual statements contain explicit threats of violence.
Instead, the context, the defendant’s actions, and the overall pattern of behavior are paramount. The statement about picking up the child from school, within the context of the defendant’s history of stalking and attempted abduction, was deemed sufficient to cause a reasonable person to fear for their family’s safety.
The Court’s Rejection of the “True Threat” Argument
The defendant’s reliance on the “true threat” doctrine, which typically requires a showing of an intent to instill fear of unlawful violence, was unsuccessful. The People v. Tafoya court’s decision highlights that in stalking cases, the cumulative effect of a defendant’s actions, including seemingly non-threatening speech, can create a credible threat that undermines First Amendment protections. This signals a broadening interpretation of what constitutes a “credible threat” in stalking prosecutions, particularly when integrated into a larger pattern of harassing and intimidating behavior.
Extrinsic Fraud and Void Custody Orders: A Warning for Family Law Cases
Beyond the First Amendment implications, People v. Tafoya also offers a stark reminder about the severe consequences of fraudulent conduct in family law proceedings.
How Fraudulent Service Voids Court Orders
The court unequivocally declared that the custody orders obtained by the defendant were void from inception due to “extrinsic fraud.” Extrinsic fraud occurs when a party is prevented from participating in a legal proceeding or from having their day in court, often through deceptive means like falsifying proof of service. In this case, the defendant’s fabrication of service documents prevented the victim from contesting the paternity action and the subsequent custody orders. This act of deception meant the victim was denied a fair opportunity to present her case, rendering the resulting orders legally invalid from the moment they were issued.
Implications for Child Abduction Defenses
The finding of extrinsic fraud had direct implications for the defendant’s attempted child abduction charge. He attempted to use the fraudulently obtained custody orders as a defense, arguing that he was merely exercising his “legal” rights. However, since the court declared these orders void due to the extrinsic fraud, his defense was rejected. This underscores a crucial principle in family law: orders obtained through fraud provide no legitimate legal basis for actions taken under their purported authority, especially in serious matters like child abduction.
What People v. Tafoya Means for Stalking and Domestic Violence Cases in California
The People v. Tafoya (2025) decision is a significant development for both criminal stalking prosecutions and civil domestic violence cases in California.
Broad vs. Narrow Interpretations of the Ruling
The legal community is now grappling with the potential interpretations of this ruling:
- Broad Interpretation: This view suggests that if speech forms part of a “course of conduct” that reasonably places a person in fear of violence, it loses constitutional protection, even if individual statements are not overtly threatening. This could expand the scope of what constitutes prosecutable stalking behavior.
- Narrow Interpretation: A narrower reading might argue that the specific statement about picking up the child from school, when viewed in context with the defendant’s actions, did constitute a “true threat” itself, making the ruling less of a departure from existing “true threat” jurisprudence and more about contextualizing seemingly innocuous statements.
Regardless of the interpretation, the case clearly signals that courts will scrutinize online behavior, particularly social media posts, as part of a larger pattern of conduct in stalking and domestic violence cases.
Protecting Victims from Speech-Based Abuse Under the DVPA
This ruling is particularly relevant to cases brought under the Domestic Violence Prevention Act (DVPA), Family Code section 6320(a). The DVPA defines “abuse” broadly to include actions that “disturb the peace” of another party, which can encompass speech-based harassment and intimidation. People v. Tafoya reinforces the ability of courts to consider online speech, even if not overtly threatening, as evidence of a “course of conduct” that causes a victim to fear for their safety or disturbs their peace. This provides a stronger legal basis for victims of domestic violence to obtain protective orders against abusers who utilize social media as a tool of control and harassment.
Navigating Complex Family Law Issues? Contact The Law Offices of Alexandra McIntosh
The complexities of California family law, particularly when intertwined with criminal conduct like stalking and issues of protected speech, require sophisticated legal understanding and strategic advocacy. If you are a victim of stalking or domestic violence, or if you are facing accusations related to these matters, understanding your rights and options is paramount.
The Law Offices of Alexandra McIntosh has extensive experience in handling intricate family law cases, including those involving domestic violence, restraining orders, and the implications of digital evidence. Our dedicated team is committed to providing compassionate yet aggressive representation to protect your interests and ensure justice. Navigating issues like stalking under Penal Code 646.9, understanding the Domestic Violence Prevention Act in California (Family Code 6320(a)), and addressing concerns about extrinsic fraud and void custody orders requires the insight of a knowledgeable San Diego family law attorney.
Whether you need assistance with obtaining a domestic violence restraining order, challenging or defending against allegations of stalking, or addressing fraudulently obtained court orders, the Law Offices of Alexandra R. McIntosh can provide the guidance and representation you deserve. Don’t face these challenging legal battles alone.
Contact the Law Offices of Alexandra McIntosh today for a confidential consultation.