A Santa Clara County Family Court judge rejected a petitioner’s request for a restraining order against San Jose State Associated Students President Branden Parent Tuesday, after a seven-hour hearing.
Judge James E. Towery described the case as “one of credibility,” in which Parent and the petitioner both took the witness stand.
“On balance, the court finds the credibility of the respondent to be greater than the credibility of the petitioner,” Towery said. “There were some matters where the testimony was just hard for me to believe.”
The petitioner, who had asked to be identified as a self-described survivor when she spoke to the Spartan Daily in October 2019, is a current SJSU student not actively enrolled in classes who currently resides in Los Angeles.
Parent filed a defamation lawsuit on Oct. 8, 2019 against the self-described survivor and another codefendent, Nuria Villanueva, a current SJSU student, which is still ongoing.
Towery’s decision to deny the restraining order came more than six months after the petitioner initially went to SJSU’s Title IX office, where both she and Parent were issued a mutual No Contact Order.
The Title IX office is still pursuing an investigation into the harassment allegations.
The self-described survivor said in previous hearings that Parent violated the agreement just a day after signing the mutual No Contact Order – a claim Parent denied previously and again on Tuesday.
She filed for an initial temporary restraining order against Parent with the Santa Clara County Family Court on Sept. 20, 2019.
She alleged that Parent had harassed and stalked her, first during an on-and-off again relationship, and secondly in the months after they broke up around November 2018.
In her testimony Tuesday, she presented a third account of alleged physical abuse at the hands of Parent, occurring in August 2019.
The incident was not previously disclosed in the temporary domestic violence restraining order filing or any other statement filed with the court. Parent denied the claim in his direct examination.
In another statement not previously disclosed to the court, the self-described survivor said she went to the San Jose Police Department before going to SJSU’s Title IX office.
“Upon going to the police and being faced with the fact that there could be criminal charges associated, I just couldn’t go through with it,” she said on the witness stand. “This is not about getting anyone into trouble or punishing anyone; it’s about my safety.”
Attorneys representing both the petitioner and Parent presented evidence during the trial and questioned the two parties when each took the witness stand.
During the cross examination of Parent, the petitioner’s counsel presented him with an iPhone call log that the self-described survivor submitted to the court as evidence of Parent’s alleged phone harassment.
When asked why he called the petitioner 32 times late one night in October 2018, Parent said he was concerned about her mental health.
“I did text my adviser in Associated Students about depressing matters with [the petitioner],” Parent said.
He cited statements the petitioner made in earlier testimony, claiming that during the time the two were in a relationship, she would reach out to Parent when she had panic attacks.
Once both parties finished taking the witness stand, Judge Towery decided in favor of Parent, denying the petitioner the restraining order.
Emphasizing that testimony is judged holistically, Towery said petitioners in domestic violence cases have the “burden of proof of showing the evidence that supports that conclusion.”
“This is not to say that I find the petitioner wholly not credible and the respondent credible,” Towery said.
The judge said he didn’t see the case in terms of black and white, but rather in shades of gray.
As a stipulation, the judge said that if the petitioner were to bring new evidence to the court in the future regarding the case, the burden of proof would transfer to Parent.
“Going forward, there’s no reason for the two individuals to have contact with one another, they are separated geographically,” Towery said. “There’s just no reason for the respondent to play any role whatsoever in the petitioner’s life.”
Contributing reporting by Vicente Vera
