From Dr. Laura:
"California Parents Have One More Mechanism To Exercise Control Over Minor Children" and the outrageous mischaracterization that "The boyfriend’s speech was between “private parties, about purely private parties, on matters of purely private interest.” Accordingly, it was “wholly without First Amendment concern." false conclusion written by Jason P. Saccuzzo, Esq.
From Metropolitan News Enterprise:
"Under Sec. 527.6, the appellate jurist explained, an order expires three years from the date of issuance unless an earlier date is specified. In this case, however, the three-year period would extend past June of this year, when Danielle turns 18 and becomes legally responsible for her own decisions, the presiding justice pointed out."
From Student Press Law Center, 2005 article:
'...But the private nature of the letters Wills wrote is key to why they are less constitutionally protected than if he wrote them in a public forum, said Thomas Burke, a First Amendment media attorney in California.
....
Now a parent can go in and get a restraining order if someone is annoying," Pechner said. "The goal of the [California] statute was to get a restraining order because someone is really fearful about someone else’s conduct."
According to Pechner, Beverly Brekke testified in trial court that she knew the letters were never meant to be a threat and that no one took them seriously.'
"From EUGENE VOLOKH:
http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/custody.pdf published in NEW YORK UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW.
Brekke v. Wills, 23 Cal. Rptr. 3d 609, 613 (Ct. App. 2005) (upholding injunction barring sixteen-year-old girl’s ex-boyfriend, whom mother considered bad influence, from contacting her, partly on grounds that injunction helped protect “[mother’s] exercise of her fundamental right as parent to direct and control her daughter’s activities”)"
For some bizarre reason, Brekke v. Wills is cited by the Bench Guide. Specifically, it says,
"It includes following or stalking an individual, making harassing telephone calls, or sending harassing correspondence by any means including mail, fax, or e-mail. CCP §527.6(b)(3). See Brekke v Wills (2005) 125 CA4th 1400, 1412–1414, 23 CR3d 609 (teenage boyfriend’s conduct constituted “course of conduct” against minor 20–13 Civil Harassment and Workplace/Postsecondary School Violence §20.11 girlfriend’s parents; boyfriend sent three vitriolic letters to girlfriend knowing her mother would read them, he had earlier sent letters instructing girlfriend on retaliatory measures she could take against her parents for their restrictions on her, and he taunted mother on telephone). Constitutionally protected activity is not included within the term “course of conduct.” CCP §527.6(b). "