Domestic Violence Laws and “Friends with Benefits”

The following summary is of a civil case, not a criminal case, however, the Fourth Appellate District Court’s ruling helps clarify the boundaries of what constitutes a “dating relationship” under Family Code § 6210. Therefore, we present this summary because inevitably, if one has not already seen such a case, the following relationship is increasingly common and it is good to know if domestic violence law applies.

In May of 2020, M.A. filed a civil complaint in the Orange County Superior Court against B.F. alleging (1) domestic violence under Civil Code § 1708.6; and (2) sexual battery under Civil Code § 1708.5.

According to the complaint, B.F. was driving M.A. in his car in July 2017. They were on their way to an apartment to have sex. During the drive, B.F. kissed M.A. and asked if she liked it if he pulled her hair. Before M.A. could respond, B.F. grabbed M.A. by the back of her head and “violently whipped her head around in several different directions.” M.A. heard the sound of bones cracking. M.A. saw a doctor the next day and was diagnosed with a concussion, muscle spasms, cervical whiplash, and cervicalgia (neck pain).

M.A. alleged she and B.F. were in a dating relationship before and on the date of the incident. Her compliant sought general, specific, and punitive damages, costs and attorney fees pursuant to Civil Code §§ 1708.5 and 1708.6.

The case proceeded to a bench trial wherein the judge ultimately found that “plaintiff did not prove the elements necessary for the plaintiff to show that the relationship fits the category of a dating relationship and therefore [is] actionable as a domestic violence cause of action.” The judge then entered judgement in B.F.’s favor.

M.A. appealed to the California Court of Appeal for the Fourth District in Santa Ana.

The Fourth Appellate District noted from the outset that Penal Code § 13700 does not define a “dating” relationship, but the Domestic Violence Prevention Act (Family Code § 6200, et seq.) (DVPA) does. Under the DVPA, a “dating relationship” consists of “frequent, intimate associations primarily characterized by the expectation of affection or sexual involvement independent of financial considerations.” Family Code § 6210.

Family Code § 6210’s definition of “dating relationship” was added by the Legislature in direct response to the holding in Oriola v. Thaler (2000) 84 Cal. App. 4th 397, in which the court of appeal held a “dating relationship” “refers to serious courtship. It is a social relationship between two individuals who have or have had a reciprocally amorous and increasingly exclusive interest in one another, and shared expectation of the growth of that mutual interest, that has endured for such a length of time and stimulated such frequent interactions that the relationship cannot be seemed to have been casual.” Oriola, at 412.

In the case of M.A. and B.F., the court of appeal noted that while the relationship between M.A. and B.F. had lasted approximately 19 months, B.F. did not take M.A. on a date or buy her any gifts, but would frequently text with her. M.A. and B.F. saw each other in person a total of eight times. While the first few interactions occurred in a six-week span and involved kissing and sexual activity, these encounters did not amount to frequent and intimate associations.

The two were introduced to each other by a mutual friend at a gym at the university they both attended. At the time, M.A. was a freshman and B.F. was a senior. They then did not see each other for another six months or so until a chance encounter at another gym. They then kissed a lot, exchanged phone numbers and went their separate ways, but communicated through text messages.

Several weeks later, they met again at a gym and B.F. invited M.A. back to his home where they kissed and M.A. gave B.F. oral sex. About a month later, M.A again went over to B.F.’s home and gave B.F. oral sex. They then met once in a hot tub and kissed a lot.

However, the appellate court noted that whether such a dating relationship exists is an inherently fact-intensive inquiry, not susceptible to resolution based on shorthand labels or descriptors. The court also went out of its way to state that a “friends with benefits” relationship is not necessarily a dating relationship or is or that it can never be one.

Therefore, the appellate court affirmed the trial court.

We offer this summary to note at least certain numbers that the M.A. / B.F. relationship seemed to rely upon. There was a 19-month, almost exclusively sexual relationship without any dates or gifts exchanged. The two met in person eight times, but texted frequently.