Annemarie Wiley, the "Real Housewives of Beverly Hills" alum, accused ex-NFL player Marcellus Wiley of a decade of physical and sexual abuse in a July 6, 2026 divorce declaration, days after his July 4 domestic-violence arrest. Under California Family Code § 3044, a domestic-violence finding creates a rebuttable presumption against awarding custody to the abusive parent — making these allegations legally decisive, not just headline fodder.
| Detail | Summary |
|---|---|
| What happened | Annemarie Wiley filed a divorce declaration alleging a decade of physical and sexual abuse, including a 2012 rape and a 2019 assault while nine months pregnant |
| When | Declaration filed July 6, 2026; Marcellus Wiley arrested July 4, 2026; criminal arraignment set for August 2026 |
| Where | California (Los Angeles County) |
| Who's affected | Both spouses and their three minor children |
| Key statute | Cal. Fam. Code § 3044 (DV custody presumption); Cal. Fam. Code § 6320 (restraining orders) |
| Impact | Custody, exclusive home use, spousal support, and a restraining order now hinge on the abuse findings |
The allegations, reported by E! News, also describe a $200,000 financial-control scheme. Marcellus Wiley has not been convicted of any crime, and these are allegations in a contested proceeding. This commentary addresses the California legal framework such claims trigger — not the truth of any specific accusation.
Why this matters legally
Domestic-violence allegations in a California divorce transform the entire case, shifting the burden of proof against the accused parent on custody. Under Cal. Fam. Code § 3044, when a court finds that a parent committed domestic violence against the other parent within the previous five years, a rebuttable presumption arises that giving that parent sole or joint physical or legal custody is detrimental to the child's best interest. This is one of the most powerful presumptions in California family law.
Crucially, the § 3044 presumption is triggered by a family-court finding — not by a criminal conviction. That distinction matters here because Marcellus Wiley's criminal arraignment is not scheduled until August 2026, while the family court can act on the divorce declaration much sooner. Family courts apply a preponderance-of-the-evidence standard (more likely than not), a far lower bar than the criminal "beyond a reasonable doubt." A parent can therefore lose the custody presumption in family court even before any criminal case resolves.
How California law handles this
California gives an abuse survivor several overlapping tools, each governed by a specific statute. First, restraining orders: under Cal. Fam. Code § 6320, a court may issue a Domestic Violence Restraining Order (DVRO) barring contact, ordering the alleged abuser to move out, and granting temporary custody. A DVRO finding is precisely the type of finding that activates the § 3044 custody presumption.
Second, exclusive use of the marital home: under Cal. Fam. Code § 6321, a court can grant one spouse exclusive possession of the residence during the case when necessary to prevent abuse or protect the household — even if the home is community property owned by both spouses.
Third, spousal support: California requires courts to consider documented domestic violence when setting support under Cal. Fam. Code § 4320, which lists the factors judges weigh. Separately, Cal. Fam. Code § 4325 creates a rebuttable presumption against awarding spousal support to a spouse convicted of domestic violence against the other — meaning a criminal outcome could later affect the support analysis.
Fourth, property and financial control: California is a community-property state under Cal. Fam. Code § 760, so most assets acquired during marriage are divided equally (50/50). Allegations that one spouse controlled $200,000 and restricted the other's financial access can support claims of breach of fiduciary duty between spouses under Cal. Fam. Code § 1101, which can shift up to 100% of an asset to the wronged spouse in cases of fraud, oppression, or malice.
Practical takeaways
California residents facing similar circumstances should focus on documentation and immediate safety, not media narratives. These steps reflect how California's statutes operate in practice.
-
Seek a restraining order first if you are in danger. A DVRO under Cal. Fam. Code § 6320 can be requested on an emergency (ex parte) basis and, if granted, can secure temporary custody and exclusive home use within days — well before the divorce itself resolves.
-
Document the abuse contemporaneously. Photographs, medical records, texts, and police reports carry weight under the preponderance standard. A family court can make a § 3044 finding without waiting for the criminal arraignment scheduled for August 2026.
-
Preserve financial records if you allege financial control. Bank statements, transfers, and access restrictions support a breach-of-fiduciary-duty claim under Cal. Fam. Code § 1101, which can shift up to 100% of a concealed or misappropriated asset.
-
Request exclusive use of the home in writing. Under Cal. Fam. Code § 6321, a court can grant one spouse possession of a community-property residence during the case to protect against abuse.
-
Understand the two separate tracks. A criminal arrest and a family-court proceeding move on different timelines and different burdens of proof. A pending criminal charge does not pause the divorce, and family orders can be entered while the criminal case is unresolved.
If you are navigating a California divorce that involves abuse allegations, custody disputes, or claims of financial control, a qualified California family law attorney can explain how § 3044, § 6320, and § 4320 apply to your specific facts and help you request the protective orders and financial disclosures your case may require.
This article discusses recent news and provides general legal commentary. It does not constitute legal advice. Every case is unique. Consult a qualified family law attorney for advice specific to your situation.