What Does It Take to Get a Restraining Order in California? Understanding the Legal Standards

Few legal remedies have a more immediate impact than a restraining order. In California, a court can order one person to stay away from another, prohibit contact, remove someone from a residence, and, in some cases, restrict firearm possession. Because these orders can significantly affect the rights of both the protected person and the restrained person, California law requires a petitioner to satisfy specific legal standards before relief may be granted.

One of the most common misconceptions is that a restraining order will issue simply because two people have had an argument or because someone feels uncomfortable. That is not the legal standard. Instead, the petitioner must prove facts that satisfy the requirements of the particular statute under which relief is sought.

Understanding those requirements begins with recognizing that California has several different types of restraining orders, each designed to address a different type of relationship or misconduct.

Not All Restraining Orders Are the Same

California law provides several statutory remedies, including:

• Domestic Violence Restraining Orders (Family Code section 6200 et seq.);

• Civil Harassment Restraining Orders (Code of Civil Procedure section 527.6);

• Elder or Dependent Adult Abuse Restraining Orders (Welfare and Institutions Code section 15657.03);

• Workplace Violence Restraining Orders (Code of Civil Procedure section 527.8); and

• Gun Violence Restraining Orders (Penal Code section 18100 et seq.).

Each remedy has different eligibility requirements and different legal standards.

The two most frequently litigated are Domestic Violence Restraining Orders ("DVROs") and Civil Harassment Restraining Orders ("CHROs").

Domestic Violence Restraining Orders

A Domestic Violence Restraining Order is available only where a qualifying relationship exists between the parties.

Under the Domestic Violence Prevention Act ("DVPA"), qualifying relationships generally include:

• spouses or former spouses;

• registered domestic partners;

• persons who are dating or formerly dated;

• persons who have a child together; and

• certain close family members.

The purpose of the DVPA is broader than simply preventing physical violence. Family Code section 6220 states that the Act is intended to prevent acts of domestic violence, abuse, and threats of abuse while providing for a period of separation sufficient to resolve the underlying causes of the violence.

What Constitutes "Abuse"?

Many people assume that abuse requires physical injury.

California law defines the concept much more broadly.

Family Code section 6203 provides that abuse may include:

• intentionally or recklessly causing bodily injury;

• sexual assault;

• placing another person in reasonable apprehension of imminent serious bodily injury; or

• engaging in conduct that has been or could be enjoined under Family Code section 6320.

Section 6320 significantly expands the scope of prohibited conduct. It authorizes courts to restrain conduct including:

• harassing;

• threatening;

• stalking;

• contacting directly or indirectly;

• disturbing the peace of the other party; and

• other specified conduct.

Over the last decade, California appellate courts have recognized that "disturbing the peace" encompasses more than physical violence.

In In re Marriage of Nadkarni (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 1483, the Court of Appeal held that conduct destroying the mental or emotional calm of the other party may constitute disturbing the peace within the meaning of the DVPA. Although every case turns on its own facts, Nadkarni remains one of the leading published decisions interpreting the breadth of Family Code section 6320.

More recently, the California Supreme Court in Burquet v. Brumbaugh (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 1140 emphasized that repeated unwanted contact, surveillance, and intimidating behavior may support protective relief under appropriate circumstances.

Civil Harassment Restraining Orders

When the parties do not share one of the qualifying relationships covered by the DVPA, a Civil Harassment Restraining Order may be the appropriate remedy.

These cases commonly involve:

• neighbors;

• roommates who are not family members;

• acquaintances;

• former friends;

• strangers; and

• other individuals with no qualifying domestic relationship.

Civil Harassment Restraining Orders are governed by Code of Civil Procedure section 527.6.

The Legal Standard Under Section 527.6

Unlike the Domestic Violence Prevention Act, section 527.6 specifically defines "harassment."

Generally speaking, harassment consists of:

• unlawful violence;

• a credible threat of violence; or

• a knowing and willful course of conduct directed at a specific person that seriously alarms, annoys, or harasses, serves no legitimate purpose, and would cause a reasonable person substantial emotional distress while actually causing substantial emotional distress to the petitioner.

This definition is intentionally more demanding than mere interpersonal conflict.

The statute does not authorize restraining orders simply because parties dislike one another or have ongoing disagreements.

What Is a "Course of Conduct"?

One isolated unpleasant interaction often will not satisfy section 527.6.

Instead, many successful petitions involve repeated conduct such as:

• repeated unwanted communications;

• persistent following or surveillance;

• repeated threats;

• ongoing intimidation;

• repeated appearances at the petitioner's home or workplace; or

• similar conduct demonstrating a continuing pattern of harassment.

Whether conduct qualifies depends upon both the nature of the acts and the surrounding circumstances.

The Requirement of Clear and Convincing Evidence

At the hearing on a request for a Civil Harassment Restraining Order, the petitioner bears a significant evidentiary burden.

Code of Civil Procedure section 527.6 requires the court to find harassment by clear and convincing evidence, a standard higher than the ordinary preponderance of the evidence used in most civil cases.

California appellate courts have repeatedly recognized the importance of this heightened standard because restraining orders can substantially affect constitutional rights, employment opportunities, housing, and firearm ownership.

In Harris v. Stampolis (2016) 248 Cal.App.4th 484, the Court of Appeal discussed the evidentiary requirements under section 527.6 and emphasized that courts must evaluate whether the statutory elements have actually been established rather than simply accepting generalized allegations of conflict.

Similarly, R.D. v. P.M. (2011) 202 Cal.App.4th 181 recognized that section 527.6 targets serious harassment rather than ordinary disagreements or personality conflicts.

Temporary Versus Permanent Orders

Most restraining order proceedings begin with a request for temporary relief.

A judge may issue a Temporary Restraining Order ("TRO") based upon the written application if the statutory requirements appear satisfied and immediate protection is warranted.

That temporary order typically remains in effect only until the noticed hearing.

At the hearing, both parties have the opportunity to present testimony, documents, photographs, electronic communications, and other admissible evidence.

Only after considering that evidence does the court determine whether a longer-term restraining order should issue.

Evidence Matters

Although every case is unique, courts frequently consider evidence such as:

• text messages;

• emails;

• voicemail recordings;

• photographs;

• surveillance video;

• police reports where admissible;

• witness testimony;

• medical records when relevant; and

• authenticated social media communications.

Because the petitioner bears the burden of proof, credibility and documentation often play a decisive role.

Restraining Orders Are Serious Judicial Orders

Whether sought under the Domestic Violence Prevention Act or Code of Civil Procedure section 527.6, restraining orders are not issued automatically. California courts must apply the specific statutory requirements enacted by the Legislature, weigh the evidence presented, and determine whether the petitioner has satisfied the applicable burden of proof.

For petitioners, that means presenting specific facts supported by competent evidence rather than generalized fears or disagreements.

For respondents, it means understanding that courts will evaluate both the legal sufficiency of the allegations and the credibility of the evidence before imposing restrictions that may significantly affect personal liberty, housing, employment, child custody, and firearm rights.

Ultimately, California's restraining order statutes seek to strike a careful balance: providing meaningful protection to individuals facing genuine abuse or harassment while ensuring that extraordinary judicial remedies are granted only when the statutory requirements have been met.

Disclaimer: This article is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reading this article does not create an attorney-client relationship. Individuals concerned about the need for, or defense of a restraining order should consult with a qualified California attorney regarding the facts of their specific case.