California Restraining Order Laws: Every Statute Explained

By Matthew Barhoma, Esq. — California State Bar No. 319339 | Last updated: November 2026

California restraining order law is spread across five codes. The Domestic Violence Prevention Act (Family Code sections 6200–6460) governs domestic violence restraining orders between spouses, partners, co-parents, and close relatives. Code of Civil Procedure section 527.6 governs civil harassment restraining orders between everyone else. Code of Civil Procedure section 527.8 lets employers protect employees; Welfare and Institutions Code section 15657.03 protects elders and dependent adults; Penal Code section 18100 and following create gun violence restraining orders; and Penal Code section 136.2 lets a criminal court issue a protective order when charges are filed. Penal Code section 273.6 makes violating any of these orders a crime. This library explains each statute in plain English, one page per code section, so that a person who has been served — or who needs protection — can read exactly what the law says before deciding what to do. The Restraining Order Law Firm, led by Matthew Barhoma, Esq. (SBN 319339), handles every one of these order types in Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, and Ventura Counties. Call (888) 808-2179 for a confidential consultation.

How to use this statute library

Each statute page follows the same structure so you can find what you need quickly: what the section says in plain English, the exact statutory text, who it applies to, how California courts have applied it, the related code sections, and a link to the firm page that covers the practical side — getting the order, or defending against it. Statutory text is reproduced from the California Legislative Information website (leginfo.legislature.ca.gov); where the Legislature has amended a section recently, the page says so and gives the operative date.

Two cautions. First, statutes change. The Legislature amends the Family Code almost every session, and the Judicial Council revises the mandatory forms to match. Every page in this library carries a last-updated date, and the official code is always the final word. Second, a statute is not a strategy. Knowing that Family Code § 6320 reaches “disturbing the peace” tells you what a judge may enjoin; it does not tell you whether the facts of your case meet that standard, or how to prove or disprove it. For that, read the practice pages linked from each statute, or talk to a lawyer.

The five bodies of law, and which order each one creates

California has no single “restraining order statute.” There are six distinct civil order types plus one criminal order, each created by its own code section, each with its own relationship requirement, burden of proof, and remedies. The table below is the map.

Two features of this table decide more cases than any other. The relationship column determines which statute you file under — and filing under the wrong one is a common, avoidable reason petitions are denied. The burden-of-proof column explains why the same conduct can produce an order under the DVPA but not under CCP § 527.6: the domestic violence standard is “more likely than not,” while civil harassment requires the much higher “clear and convincing” showing.

The Domestic Violence Prevention Act — Family Code §§ 6200–6460

The Domestic Violence Prevention Act (DVPA) is the statute behind every domestic violence restraining order issued in California. It defines who is protected, what counts as abuse, what a court can order, how long an order lasts, and what happens to the restrained person’s firearms and custody rights. Its stated purpose, in Family Code § 6220, is to prevent acts of domestic violence and abuse and to provide for a separation of the persons involved for a period sufficient to enable them to seek a resolution of the causes of the violence. The pages below take the Act apart section by section.

Definitions (§§ 6200–6220)

• Family Code § 6203 — Definition of Abuse. The four-part definition every DVRO case turns on: intentionally or recklessly causing or attempting to cause bodily injury; sexual assault; placing a person in reasonable apprehension of imminent serious bodily injury; and engaging in any behavior that has been or could be enjoined under § 6320. The section states expressly that abuse “is not limited to the actual infliction of physical injury or assault.” This is the statute to read first, whether you are seeking an order or fighting one.
• Family Code § 6211 — Definition of Domestic Violence (Covered Relationships). Lists the six relationship categories that make abuse “domestic violence”: spouse or former spouse; cohabitant or former cohabitant; a person in a current or former dating or engagement relationship; a co-parent; a child; and any other person related by consanguinity or affinity within the second degree. If the relationship is not on this list, the DVPA does not apply and the case belongs under CCP § 527.6.
• Family Code § 6200 — The Domestic Violence Prevention Act. The Act’s short title, structure, and purpose, with a section-by-section index of Division 10 of the Family Code. (Page forthcoming.)
• Family Code § 6209 — Definition of Cohabitant. A cohabitant is a person who regularly resides in the household; a former cohabitant is one who regularly resided there in the past. Covered on the § 6211 page.
• Family Code § 6210 — Dating Relationship. Frequent, intimate associations primarily characterized by the expectation of affectional or sexual involvement independent of financial considerations. Covered on the § 6211 page.
• Family Code § 6218 — Protective Order. Defines “protective order” to mean an order under § 6320 (personal conduct), § 6321 (residence exclusion), or § 6322 (other specified behavior). Covered on the § 6320 page.

What a court can order (§§ 6300–6327)

• Family Code § 6320 — Conduct a DVRO Can Prohibit (Including Coercive Control). The enumerated list of conduct a judge may enjoin: molesting, attacking, striking, stalking, threatening, sexually assaulting, battering, credibly impersonating, falsely personating, harassing, telephoning, destroying personal property, contacting directly or indirectly, coming within a specified distance, and “disturbing the peace of the other party.” Subdivision (c) defines disturbing the peace to include coercive control and lists five categories of controlling conduct. Because § 6203(a)(4) incorporates this list, § 6320 is where the practical definition of abuse lives.
• Family Code § 6300 — Basis for Issuing an Order. An order may issue, with or without notice, on reasonable proof of a past act or acts of abuse, based on the affidavit or testimony of the person requesting it. The statute specifies that the court shall consider the totality of the circumstances and that the length of time since the most recent act of abuse is not, by itself, determinative (§ 6301(d)). Covered on the § 6203 page.
• Family Code § 6305 — Mutual Restraining Orders. A court may not issue mutual orders unless both parties personally appear, each presents written evidence of abuse, and the court makes detailed findings that both acted as a primary aggressor and neither acted primarily in self-defense. Covered on the § 6320 page. (Dedicated page forthcoming.)
• Family Code § 6321 — Move-Out (Residence Exclusion) Orders. Lets the court exclude a party from the family dwelling, regardless of who holds title or the lease, on a showing of a right to possession, that the party to be excluded has assaulted or threatens to assault the other party or a child, and that physical or emotional harm would otherwise result. (Page forthcoming.)
• Family Code § 6323 — Custody and Visitation in DVRO Cases. Authorizes temporary custody and visitation orders as part of a DVRO, subject to the § 3044 presumption. (Page forthcoming.)

Duration, renewal, firearms, and custody consequences

• Family Code §§ 6340–6345 — Duration, Renewal, and Permanent Orders. An order after hearing may last up to five years, and may be renewed, on request made within the three months before expiration, for five years or permanently — without a showing of any further abuse. The renewal standard, from Ritchie v. Konrad (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 1275, is a reasonable apprehension of future abuse. (Page forthcoming; see Permanent Domestic Violence Restraining Order.)
• Family Code § 6389 — Firearm Prohibition Under a DVRO. A person subject to a DVRO may not own, possess, purchase, or receive a firearm or ammunition while the order is in effect, and must relinquish any firearm within 24 hours of being served. (Page forthcoming; see Gun Violence Restraining Orders for the firearms overview.)
• Family Code § 3044 — Presumption Against Custody for a Perpetrator of Domestic Violence. A finding that a parent committed domestic violence within the previous five years creates a rebuttable presumption that awarding that parent sole or joint custody is detrimental to the child. (Page forthcoming; see Domestic Violence Restraining Order and Child Custody in California.)
• Family Code § 6250 — Emergency Protective Orders. Lets law enforcement obtain an order from an on-call judge, by telephone, that takes effect immediately and lasts up to seven days. (Page forthcoming; see Emergency Protective Order.)

Civil harassment, workplace, and school violence — Code of Civil Procedure §§ 527.6–527.9

Code of Civil Procedure section 527.6 is the restraining order statute for people who are not in a domestic relationship: neighbors, coworkers, former friends, acquaintances, and strangers. It defines “harassment” as 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. The court must find harassment by clear and convincing evidence before issuing an order after hearing.

• CCP § 527.6 — Civil Harassment Restraining Orders. The definition of harassment, the clear-and-convincing standard, the course-of-conduct requirement, the constitutionally-protected-activity carve-out, and the attorney’s-fee provision. (Page forthcoming; see the Civil Harassment Restraining Order hub.)
• CCP § 527.8 — Workplace Violence Restraining Orders. Lets an employer seek an order on behalf of an employee who has suffered unlawful violence or a credible threat of violence that can reasonably be construed to be carried out at the workplace. (Page forthcoming; see Workplace Violence Restraining Order.)
• CCP § 527.85 — School Violence Restraining Orders. The parallel statute for postsecondary institutions protecting students. (Page forthcoming; see School Violence Restraining Order.)
• CCP § 527.9 — Firearm Surrender Under a CHRO or WVRO. Requires a person restrained under § 527.6 or § 527.8 to relinquish firearms within 24 hours. (Page forthcoming.)
• CCP §§ 1005 and 1008 — Motion Deadlines and Reconsideration. The timing rules for motions to modify, terminate, or reconsider an order. (Page forthcoming.)

Elder, dependent adult, and juvenile orders — Welfare and Institutions Code

• Welf. & Inst. Code § 15657.03 — Elder and Dependent Adult Abuse Restraining Orders. Protects people 65 and older, and dependent adults 18 to 64, from physical abuse, neglect, financial abuse, abandonment, isolation, abduction, or treatment resulting in physical harm or pain or mental suffering. Uses the preponderance standard. (Page forthcoming; see Elder & Dependent Adult Abuse Restraining Orders.)
• Welf. & Inst. Code § 213.5 — Juvenile Court Restraining Orders. Lets the juvenile court issue protective orders in dependency and delinquency cases. (Page forthcoming; see Juvenile Court Restraining Orders.)

Criminal protective orders and the crimes of violating an order — Penal Code

The Penal Code intersects restraining order practice in two ways. First, it creates orders of its own: the criminal protective order a judge issues when charges are pending (§ 136.2) and the gun violence restraining order (§ 18100 et seq.). Second, it punishes violations. A person who knowingly violates a DVRO, CHRO, WVRO, EARO, or CPO commits a misdemeanor under § 273.6, and a person who possesses a firearm while restrained commits a separate crime under § 29825.

• Penal Code § 136.2 — Criminal Protective Orders. Issued by the criminal court on a showing of good cause that harm to, or intimidation or dissuasion of, a victim or witness has occurred or is reasonably likely to occur. In domestic violence cases, a post-conviction CPO can last up to 10 years. (Page forthcoming.)
• Penal Code § 273.6 — Violation of a Protective Order. Any intentional and knowing violation of a protective order is a misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in county jail and a $1,000 fine; a violation involving violence or a second violation within seven years can be charged as a felony. (Page forthcoming; see Violating a California Restraining Order.)
• Penal Code § 273.5 — Corporal Injury to a Spouse or Cohabitant. The felony domestic violence charge that most often runs alongside a DVRO. (Page forthcoming.)
• Penal Code § 243(e)(1) — Domestic Battery. The misdemeanor charge for battery against an intimate partner that does not cause a traumatic condition. (Page forthcoming.)
• Penal Code § 646.9 — Stalking. Willful, malicious, repeated following or harassing combined with a credible threat. Stalking is also one of the enumerated acts under Family Code § 6320. (Page forthcoming.)
• Penal Code § 653m — Harassing Calls and Electronic Contact. The misdemeanor for obscene, threatening, or repeated telephone and electronic contact. (Page forthcoming.)
• Penal Code § 166 — Contempt of Court. The alternative charge for disobeying a court order. (Page forthcoming.)
• Penal Code § 18100 et seq. — Gun Violence Restraining Orders. The statutes that let a court remove firearms from a person who poses a significant danger to self or others. (Page forthcoming; see Gun Violence Restraining Orders.)
• Penal Code § 29825 — Firearm Possession in Violation of a Protective Order. The crime of purchasing, receiving, owning, or possessing a firearm while subject to a protective order. (Page forthcoming.)

Evidence, court rules, and federal law

• Evidence Code § 1109 — Prior Acts of Domestic Violence as Evidence. Makes evidence of a defendant’s other acts of domestic violence admissible in a criminal domestic violence prosecution, an exception to the usual bar on character evidence. (Page forthcoming.)
• California Rules of Court, rule 5.380 et seq. — Court Rules for Restraining Order Hearings. The procedural rules governing DVRO requests, including the rule that a court may not require a petitioner to attend mediation before a hearing. (Page forthcoming.)
• 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8) — Federal Firearm Ban Under a Protective Order. The federal law making it a felony for a person subject to a qualifying protective order to possess a firearm, upheld by the United States Supreme Court in United States v. Rahimi (2024). (Page forthcoming.)
• 18 U.S.C. § 2265 — Full Faith and Credit for Protective Orders. Requires every state to enforce a protective order issued by any other state, tribe, or territory. (Page forthcoming.)

Controlling case law

A handful of appellate decisions do as much work as the statutes themselves. Each is discussed on the statute page it interprets, and the most-cited will receive their own pages.

• In re Marriage of Nadkarni (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 1483 — held that “disturbing the peace” under § 6320 means conduct that destroys the mental or emotional calm of the other party, and that accessing and disclosing a former spouse’s private emails could qualify. The decision opened the door to non-physical abuse under the DVPA and was later codified in § 6320(c). Discussed on the § 6320 page.
• Ritchie v. Konrad (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 1275 — set the renewal standard: a protected party need not show new abuse, only a reasonable apprehension of future abuse. Discussed on the Permanent Domestic Violence Restraining Order page.
• Rodriguez v. Menjivar (2015) 243 Cal.App.4th 816 — reversed the denial of a DVRO where the respondent’s controlling conduct, including constant monitoring and verbal abuse, disturbed the petitioner’s peace even though the court had focused on the absence of recent physical violence. Discussed on the § 6203 page.
• Burquet v. Brumbaugh (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 1140 — affirmed a DVRO based on unwanted contact after a breakup, holding that the conduct disturbed the petitioner’s peace even without any threat of violence. Discussed on the § 6320 page.
• Curcio v. Pels (2020) 47 Cal.App.5th 1 — reversed a DVRO based on a single private social-media post, holding that the DVPA is not a tool for enjoining speech that is merely upsetting. The leading respondent-side authority on the limits of “disturbing the peace.” Discussed on the § 6320 page.
• Phillips v. Campbell (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 844 — held that a “dating relationship” under § 6210 does not require a sexual relationship. Discussed on the § 6211 page.

Which statute applies to your situation?

The right statute follows from two questions: what is your relationship to the other person, and what did they do?

If you are or were married, registered domestic partners, dating, engaged, living together, or share a child — or are parents, children, siblings, grandparents, grandchildren, or in-laws — the DVPA applies, and the question is whether the conduct meets the § 6203 definition of abuse. If none of those relationships exists, CCP § 527.6 applies, and the question is whether the conduct meets its narrower definition of harassment under the higher clear-and-convincing standard. If you are 65 or older or a dependent adult, you may have a choice between the DVPA (if the abuser is a relative or partner) and § 15657.03 (which covers caregivers and strangers as well). If an employer wants to protect you at work, that is § 527.8. If the concern is firearms access rather than conduct toward you, that is a GVRO under Penal Code § 18100.

The firm’s Domestic Violence Restraining Order and Civil Harassment Restraining Order hubs each explain the practical side — forms, deadlines, the hearing, and what the order does — for the two statutes that account for the large majority of California restraining order cases. The California Restraining Order Hearing page explains what happens in court under any of them.

Why the statutory text matters for both sides

For a petitioner, the statute is the checklist. A DVRO request that does not allege facts fitting a § 6203 category, from a person in a § 6211 relationship, will not survive a contested hearing no matter how distressing the conduct was. For a respondent, the statute is the first line of defense. A large share of DVRO defenses are not “it didn’t happen” but “even if it happened, it is not abuse as the Legislature defined it” — an argument that can only be made by someone who has read §§ 6203 and 6320 and the cases applying them. Both sides benefit from reading the law before the hearing; our role is to apply it to your facts.

The Restraining Order Law Firm represents petitioners and respondents in restraining order matters throughout Southern California from offices at 835 Wilshire Blvd., Floor 5, Los Angeles 90017 and 695 Town Center Dr., #1200, Costa Mesa 92626. As a d/b/a of Barhoma Law, P.C., the firm also handles the criminal cases that frequently run alongside a restraining order. Call (888) 808-2179.

Frequently asked questions about California restraining order laws

The Restraining Order Law Firm is a d/b/a of Barhoma Law, P.C. This page is attorney advertising and general information about California law, not legal advice. Reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statutes, forms, and deadlines change — verify all references with counsel before relying on them. If you are in immediate danger, call 911.