Family Code § 6211: California’s Definition of Domestic Violence and the Relationships Covered by a DVRO

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

California Family Code section 6211 defines “domestic violence” as abuse perpetrated against any of six categories of people: a spouse or former spouse; a cohabitant or former cohabitant; a person with whom the respondent is having or has had a dating or engagement relationship; a person with whom the respondent has had a child; a child of a party; or any other person related by consanguinity or affinity within the second degree. The section does not define abuse — that is the work of Family Code section 6203 — it defines who the abuse must be directed at for the Domestic Violence Prevention Act to apply. If the relationship between the parties is on this list, the petitioner may seek a domestic violence restraining order with its lower burden of proof and broader remedies. If it is not, the petitioner must use a different statute, usually Code of Civil Procedure section 527.6, and the respondent has a complete threshold defense to any request filed under the Family Code. Three companion sections supply the definitions § 6211 depends on: § 6209 (cohabitant), § 6210 (dating relationship), and § 6205 (affinity). This page is part of the California Restraining Order Laws library maintained by the Restraining Order Law Firm; for the practical side, see Who Can Get a Domestic Violence Restraining Order. Call (888) 808-2179 for a confidential consultation.

Family Code § 6211 at a glance

The text of Family Code § 6211

“Domestic violence” is abuse perpetrated against any of the following persons:

(a) A spouse or former spouse.

(b) A cohabitant or former cohabitant, as defined in Section 6209.

(c) A person with whom the respondent is having or has had a dating or engagement relationship.

(d) A person with whom the respondent has had a child, where the presumption applies that the male parent is the father of the child of the female parent under the Uniform Parentage Act (Part 3 (commencing with Section 7600) of Division 12).

(e) A child of a party or a child who is the subject of an action under the Uniform Parentage Act, where the presumption applies that the male parent is the father of the child to be protected.

(f) Any other person related by consanguinity or affinity within the second degree.

The three companion definitions read as follows.

§ 6209. “Cohabitant” means a person who regularly resides in the household. “Former cohabitant” means a person who formerly regularly resided in the household.

§ 6210. “Dating relationship” means frequent, intimate associations primarily characterized by the expectation of affection or sexual involvement independent of financial considerations.

§ 6205. “Affinity,” when applied to the marriage relation, signifies the connection existing in consequence of marriage between each of the married persons and the blood relatives of the other.

The official text is published by the Legislative Counsel at leginfo.legislature.ca.gov.

What § 6211 means in plain English

The Domestic Violence Prevention Act does not protect everyone from everyone. It protects people from abuse by those closest to them — the people the Legislature judged most able to inflict harm and most difficult to escape. Section 6211 draws that circle. Inside it, a petitioner gets the DVPA’s advantages: a preponderance-of-the-evidence standard rather than clear and convincing evidence, the broad definition of abuse in §§ 6203 and 6320 including coercive control, and remedies such as move-out orders, custody orders, support orders, and protection of pets that a civil harassment order cannot provide. Outside it, the petitioner has Code of Civil Procedure § 527.6, with its narrower definition of harassment and higher burden.

Two features of the section are easy to miss. First, every relationship category that can end — marriage, cohabitation, dating, engagement — expressly includes the former relationship, and the statute places no time limit on how long ago it ended. A person who dated the respondent for three months ten years ago is within § 6211(c). Second, the relationship is measured between the respondent and the person abused, not necessarily the person filing. A parent may file on behalf of a child; a petitioner may ask that other household members be protected under § 6320(a); and under Gou v. Xiao (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 812, abuse of a child can itself be abuse of the parent.

Category by category: the six relationships

(a) Spouse or former spouse

The first category is the simplest. Current spouses and former spouses qualify, regardless of how long the marriage lasted or how long ago it ended, and regardless of whether a divorce, legal separation, or nullity case has been filed. Family Code § 6301(c) states expressly that the right to petition is not denied because no dissolution petition has been filed. Registered domestic partners are treated as spouses throughout the Family Code under § 297.5, so current and former registered domestic partners are within this category. Same-sex spouses and partners have the same rights as any other.

(b) Cohabitant or former cohabitant

A cohabitant under § 6209 is “a person who regularly resides in the household,” and a former cohabitant is one who formerly did. On its face the definition could reach any roommate. The courts have not read it that way. In O’Kane v. Irvine (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 207, the Court of Appeal held that a landlord and tenant who shared a residence, with no relationship beyond that arrangement, were not “cohabitants” within the meaning of the DVPA. Drawing on the Penal Code’s domestic violence provisions, the court looked for a substantial relationship manifested by permanence and sexual or amorous intimacy, or a comparable degree of mutual commitment — not merely two people under one roof. A boarder, a short-term subletter, or a roommate found through an advertisement is generally outside subdivision (b), and a petition against such a person belongs under CCP § 527.6.

The analysis is fact-specific. Adult siblings sharing a home qualify under (f) regardless of (b). Unmarried partners who live together are the paradigm cohabitants. A couple who maintain separate residences but spend most nights together are a closer question, and a petitioner who cannot establish cohabitation may still qualify under the dating-relationship category.

(c) Dating or engagement relationship

Subdivision (c) covers current and former dating and engagement relationships. Before 2001, the statute did not define “dating relationship,” and in Oriola v. Thaler (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 397 the Court of Appeal filled the gap by requiring a “serious courtship” — a social relationship between two individuals with a reciprocally amorous and increasingly exclusive interest in one another, of sufficient duration and frequency not to be casual, with a shared expectation that the interest would grow. On that test, a casual, non-exclusive acquaintance did not qualify. The Legislature responded by enacting § 6210, which defines a dating relationship as “frequent, intimate associations primarily characterized by the expectation of affection or sexual involvement independent of financial considerations.”

Three points about the current definition are settled. The relationship need not be sexual: in Phillips v. Campbell (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 844, the Court of Appeal affirmed a restraining order where the parties described themselves as friends and there was no evidence of sexual relations, holding that the trial court could infer a dating relationship from their messages and conduct because § 6210’s “affection or sexual involvement” means affection alone suffices. The relationship need not be exclusive or long. And “independent of financial considerations” excludes relationships that are commercial in nature — a paid escort arrangement is not a dating relationship — while leaving intact relationships in which partners happen to share expenses.

What remains fact-intensive is the boundary between a dating relationship and a friendship or hookup. Frequency, intimacy, and the parties’ own expectations, as shown by their communications, are the evidence courts examine. A respondent who disputes that a dating relationship existed should expect the court to read the text-message history.

(d) Co-parents

Subdivision (d) covers a person with whom the respondent has had a child, where the Uniform Parentage Act’s presumption of parentage applies. In practice, parents who share a child qualify whether or not they ever married, dated, or lived together, and whether the child is a newborn or an adult. The statutory language refers to the male parent’s presumed paternity, but the Family Code’s parentage provisions are applied without regard to gender, and co-parents of any configuration whose parentage is established or presumed under the Uniform Parentage Act are within the subdivision. Where parentage is disputed and no presumption applies, the petitioner may still qualify under the dating or cohabitation categories.

(e) A child of a party

Subdivision (e) brings a party’s own child, or a child who is the subject of a parentage action, within the definition. It is the basis on which a parent seeks protection for a child from the other parent, and on which an adult child may seek protection from a parent. It operates alongside § 6320(a), which allows the court to extend protection to other named family or household members, and § 6340, which allows the court to add protected parties on a showing of good cause. In K.T. v. E.S. (2025) 109 Cal.App.5th 1114, the Court of Appeal held that children who witnessed one parent’s abuse of the other had a basis for protection in their own right, because their peace was disturbed within the meaning of § 6320(c).

(f) Relatives by blood or marriage within the second degree

Subdivision (f) is a catch-all for family members not already covered. “Consanguinity” means relationship by blood; “affinity,” under § 6205, means the relationship created by marriage between one spouse and the blood relatives of the other. “Within the second degree” is counted by the civil-law method: each step from one person up to a common ancestor and down to the other person is a degree.

Adoptive relationships are treated as blood relationships. Two recurring questions deserve direct answers. Aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, and cousins are third-degree or more remote relatives and are not covered by subdivision (f); a petition against them proceeds under CCP § 527.6. And relationships by affinity generally end when the marriage that created them ends — a former sister-in-law after a divorce is no longer a relative by affinity — though the former spouse remains covered under subdivision (a).

What the relationship requirement does not include

The DVPA does not reach the following relationships, however serious the conduct. In each case the petitioner’s remedy is a civil harassment restraining order under CCP § 527.6, or another specialized statute.

• Neighbors, coworkers, classmates, and acquaintances.
• Friends who never had a dating relationship within § 6210.
• Roommates or housemates with no relationship beyond sharing a residence (O’Kane).
• Cousins, aunts, uncles, nieces, and nephews.
• Former in-laws after the marriage that connected them has ended.
• A current partner’s former partner, or a former partner’s new partner, where the petitioner has no direct relationship with the respondent.
• Business partners and landlords or tenants with no personal relationship.
• Caregivers who are not relatives or partners — though an elder or dependent adult may proceed under Welfare and Institutions Code § 15657.03.

When the relationship is the defense

For a respondent, § 6211 is a threshold defense that does not depend on disputing a single fact about the alleged conduct. If the petitioner cannot establish a qualifying relationship, the court lacks authority to issue an order under the DVPA, and the request must be denied regardless of the merits. The defense is raised in the response (Form DV-120) and at the hearing, and it is most often available in three situations: a claimed “dating relationship” that was in fact a friendship, a brief acquaintance, or a commercial arrangement; a claimed “cohabitation” that was a roommate or landlord-tenant arrangement; and a claimed family relationship that is third-degree or more remote, or that was by affinity through a marriage that has ended.

Two cautions. The court may permit the petitioner to amend or refile under CCP § 527.6, so defeating a DVRO on relationship grounds may convert the case rather than end it — though under the higher clear-and-convincing standard and without the DVPA’s remedies. And the relationship defense should not be overpleaded: if the parties exchanged hundreds of affectionate messages, a court will find a dating relationship, and credibility spent on a weak threshold argument is credibility lost on the merits. A respondent with a strong relationship defense should lead with it; one without should focus on whether the conduct is abuse under Family Code § 6203 and § 6320.

When the relationship is established: what the petitioner gains

Establishing a § 6211 relationship unlocks remedies no other California restraining order statute provides together. Under the DVPA a court may issue personal-conduct, stay-away, and no-contact orders (§ 6320); exclude the respondent from the shared residence regardless of title or lease (§ 6321); make temporary custody and visitation orders (§ 6323), with the § 3044 presumption against custody applying to a parent found to have committed domestic violence; order child or spousal support and payment of debts; protect pets (§ 6320(b)); order the respondent to relinquish firearms within 24 hours (§ 6389); and, after hearing, issue an order lasting up to five years that may be renewed for five years or permanently without proof of further abuse (§ 6345). There is no filing fee (§ 6222). The Judicial Council’s self-help guide to domestic violence restraining orders lists the forms.

Related procedural rules

• Minors. Under Code of Civil Procedure § 372(b) and Family Code § 6301(b), a minor 12 years of age or older may file a DVPA petition without a guardian ad litem.
• Venue and residence. A petitioner need not be a California resident, and the petition may be filed in the county where the petitioner resides or is temporarily located, where the respondent resides, where the abuse occurred, or any other court with jurisdiction (§ 6301(a), as amended by SB 554 effective January 1, 2025).
• No dissolution required. The right to petition is not denied because the petitioner has left the household to avoid abuse or because no divorce, separation, or nullity petition has been filed (§ 6301(c)).
• Forced marriage (effective January 1, 2027). AB 2534 (Stats. 2026, ch. 950) amends § 6211 to add abuse perpetrated against a party to a forced marriage or attempted forced marriage, and makes conforming changes to §§ 6301, 6320, and 6340. Until that date, the six categories above are the complete list.

§ 6211 compared with the civil harassment statute

Related statutes

• Family Code § 6203 — the definition of abuse that § 6211 attaches to a relationship.
• Family Code § 6320 — the conduct a court may enjoin, and the authority to protect other family or household members.
• Family Code § 6205 — definition of affinity.
• Family Code § 6209 — definition of cohabitant and former cohabitant.
• Family Code § 6210 — definition of dating relationship.
• Family Code § 297.5 — registered domestic partners have the rights of spouses.
• Family Code § 6301 — who may petition; venue; minors; totality of the circumstances.
• Family Code § 7600 et seq. — the Uniform Parentage Act referenced in subdivisions (d) and (e).
• Code of Civil Procedure § 372(b) — minors 12 and older may petition without a guardian ad litem.
• Code of Civil Procedure § 527.6 — the statute that applies when no § 6211 relationship exists.
• Welfare and Institutions Code § 15657.03 — elder and dependent adult abuse restraining orders.

The practical side

For a decision tree that applies these categories to common situations — exes, roommates, in-laws, co-parents who never dated, minors — and for how the relationship question is argued at a hearing, see Who Can Get a Domestic Violence Restraining Order. For the abuse question that follows, see What Counts as Abuse Under Family Code 6203. The Domestic Violence Restraining Order hub covers the full process, and the Civil Harassment Restraining Order hub covers the alternative when the relationship does not qualify.

The Restraining Order Law Firm, a d/b/a of Barhoma Law, P.C., represents petitioners and respondents in domestic violence and civil harassment restraining order matters in Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, and Ventura Counties, from offices in Los Angeles and Costa Mesa. Call (888) 808-2179.

Frequently asked questions about Family Code § 6211

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.