In Siam v. Kizilbash (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 1563, a father accused his ex-wife's boyfriend of abusing the couple's children, and filed an action against the boyfriend under section 527.6. The boyfriend then sued the father for, among other things, malicious prosecution. The father filed a special motion to strike the boyfriend's complaint under the anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) law, section 425.16. (130 Cal.App.4th at p. 1567.) The Siam court held that, for public policy reasons, an unsuccessful action under section 527.6 cannot serve as the predicate for a cause of action for malicious prosecution. (Siam, supra, 130 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1571-1574.) In the course of explaining its reasoning for this holding, the Siam court noted that "just as in family law matters, section 527.6 provides for attorney fees as sanctions for a frivolous petition." (130 Cal.App.4th at p. 1573.) In short, the defendant contacted law enforcement authorities and school officials, accusing the plaintiff of physically abusing his two sons. The plaintiff denied the allegations and sued the defendant, who responded by filing a special motion to strike under the anti-SLAPP statute. The trial court denied the motion, but the appellate court reversed, holding that "communications that are preparatory to or in anticipation of commencing official proceedings come within the protection of the anti-SLAPP statute." (Siam, at p. 1570.)