DVRO vs. Civil Harassment Restraining Order in California

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

The difference between a domestic violence restraining order (DVRO) and a civil harassment restraining order (CHRO) in California is the relationship between the two people. A DVRO, under the Domestic Violence Prevention Act (Family Code section 6200 et seq.), is available only against a spouse or former spouse, a cohabitant or former cohabitant, a dating or former dating partner, the other parent of a child, or a close relative. A CHRO, under Code of Civil Procedure section 527.6, covers everyone else: neighbors, coworkers, roommates, acquaintances, and strangers. That one threshold fact changes almost everything that follows. A DVRO requires proof of “abuse” by a preponderance of the evidence; a CHRO requires proof of “harassment” by clear and convincing evidence, a much higher standard. A DVRO can include child custody, support, and a move-out order; a CHRO cannot. A DVRO can be renewed permanently; a CHRO renews for up to five more years at a time. A DVRO finding can trigger a presumption against custody; a CHRO does not. Both last up to five years, both prohibit firearms, and violating either is a crime. The Restraining Order Law Firm tries both kinds of cases, for respondents and petitioners, across Southern California. Call (888) 808-2179 for a confidential consultation.

DVRO vs. CHRO at a glance

The relationship decides which order applies

Which order applies is not a choice. It is decided by whether the parties have one of the relationships listed in Family Code § 6211. If they do, the case belongs under the Domestic Violence Prevention Act. If they do not, the Act does not apply at all, and the only civil remedy is a civil harassment order (or, for an employer, a workplace violence order).

The § 6211 relationships are:

• A spouse or former spouse.
• A cohabitant or former cohabitant, meaning a person who regularly resides or resided in the household (Fam. Code § 6209).
• A person with whom the respondent has or had a dating or engagement relationship, meaning “frequent, intimate associations primarily characterized by the expectation of affection or sexual involvement independent of financial considerations” (Fam. Code § 6210).
• A person with whom the respondent has had a child.
• A child of a party.
• Any other person related by blood or marriage within the second degree: parents, children, siblings, grandparents, grandchildren, and the same relatives by marriage.

Everyone outside that list is a civil harassment case. The table below sorts the situations the firm sees most.

The relationship question is litigated more often than people expect. Whether two people “dated” is decided on facts; in Oriola v. Thaler (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 397 the Court of Appeal described a dating relationship as a serious courtship, and in Phillips v. Campbell (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 844 it held that a dating relationship can exist without sexual involvement. Whether a housemate is a “cohabitant” is likewise a question of fact; in O’Kane v. Irvine (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 207 the court held that a subtenant sharing a house was not. Our guide to who qualifies for a domestic violence restraining order covers each relationship in depth.

Abuse vs. harassment: what must be proved

A DVRO requires “abuse.” A CHRO requires “harassment.” The two definitions overlap, but harassment is the narrower and harder one to prove.

Abuse under the Domestic Violence Prevention Act. Under Family Code § 6203, abuse means intentionally or recklessly causing or attempting to cause bodily injury; sexual assault; placing a person in reasonable apprehension of imminent serious bodily injury; or any behavior that could be enjoined under Family Code § 6320. The § 6320 list includes stalking, threatening, harassing, making annoying phone calls, destroying property, contacting the other person, and “disturbing the peace of the other party,” which means conduct that, under the totality of the circumstances, destroys the other person’s mental or emotional calm, and which expressly includes coercive control. No physical violence is required. A single act can be enough. See what counts as abuse.

Harassment under CCP § 527.6. Harassment means one of three things: 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 the person, and that serves no legitimate purpose.” The course of conduct must be one that “would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress,” and must actually cause substantial emotional distress to the petitioner (CCP § 527.6(b)(3)). A “course of conduct” is a pattern, a series of acts over a period of time, however short, showing a continuity of purpose. Constitutionally protected activity is excluded. See what counts as harassment under CCP 527.6.

The practical differences:

• One act vs. a pattern. A single act of abuse can support a DVRO. Outside of violence or a credible threat of violence, a CHRO requires a course of conduct, more than one act.
• Subjective calm vs. an objective reasonable-person test. Disturbing the peace under the DVPA asks whether this petitioner’s mental or emotional calm was destroyed. The civil harassment statute adds an objective layer: a reasonable person must have suffered substantial emotional distress.
• “No legitimate purpose.” Conduct that serves a legitimate purpose is not harassment under § 527.6, even if it is unwelcome. The DVPA has no equivalent element.
• Future harm. A civil harassment order is an injunction against future conduct. Where the petition rests on past acts, the court must find a reasonable probability that the harassment will continue or recur. A DVRO may issue on proof of past abuse alone (Fam. Code § 6300).

The burden of proof: the difference that decides cases

A DVRO is granted on a preponderance of the evidence, meaning more likely than not. A CHRO requires clear and convincing evidence, meaning evidence that makes the fact highly probable. The gap between those two standards is the single most important practical difference between the two cases.

In a typical contested hearing there are two witnesses, the petitioner and the respondent, and they tell different stories. Under a preponderance standard, a judge who finds the petitioner somewhat more believable can grant the order. Under a clear and convincing standard, the same judge, on the same evidence, should deny it. Corroboration (messages, recordings, photographs, neutral witnesses) matters in both cases; in a civil harassment case it is usually the difference between an order and a denial.

This is why the relationship fight matters to both sides. A petitioner who can file under the Domestic Violence Prevention Act faces a lower burden and has more remedies. A respondent who can show that the parties never had a § 6211 relationship, that a handful of dates was not a “dating relationship,” or that a housemate was not a “cohabitant,” moves the case to a statute where the petitioner must prove far more.

What each order can include

Both orders can prohibit contact and require the restrained person to stay away. Only a DVRO reaches the family’s home, children, and finances.

Both orders can:

• Prohibit harassing, threatening, stalking, striking, and contacting the protected person, directly or through others.
• Require the restrained person to stay a set distance from the protected person and their home, workplace, school, and vehicle.
• Extend protection to family or household members on a showing of good cause.
• Protect pets.
• Prohibit firearms and ammunition and require relinquishment within 24 hours of service.

Only a DVRO can:

• Order the restrained person to move out of a shared home (Fam. Code § 6321).
• Award temporary custody and visitation (Fam. Code §§ 6323, 6340).
• Order child support and spousal support (Fam. Code § 6341).
• Control property and order payment of debts (Fam. Code §§ 6324, 6342.5).
• Order restitution for lost earnings and out-of-pocket costs (Fam. Code § 6342).
• Order the restrained person into a batterer intervention program (Fam. Code § 6343).

A civil harassment order cannot decide custody or support, and it cannot evict anyone. A petitioner who needs those remedies and has a qualifying relationship should be under the Family Code.

Consequences for the restrained person

Both orders carry the same core consequences: entry in the statewide CLETS database, visibility on background checks, a firearm prohibition under state and often federal law, and criminal exposure under Penal Code § 273.6 for any violation. A DVRO adds several that a CHRO does not.

• Child custody. A finding of domestic violence within the previous five years triggers a rebuttable presumption that awarding the restrained parent sole or joint custody is detrimental to the child (Fam. Code § 3044). A civil harassment order carries no custody presumption. See DVROs and child custody.
• The home. A DVRO can remove the restrained person from a residence, including one they own or lease.
• Permanence. A DVRO can be renewed permanently. A CHRO renews for no more than five additional years at a time.
• Federal firearm law. The federal prohibition in 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8) applies to orders protecting an “intimate partner” or the partner’s child, which fits most DVROs and few CHROs. California’s own prohibition applies to both.
• The label. A domestic violence restraining order reads differently to an employer, a licensing board, or an immigration officer than a civil harassment order does.

For a respondent, this means the first question in any case is whether it was filed under the right statute, and the second is what each statute would require the petitioner to prove. Our respondent’s guide covers the first 72 hours after service.

Attorney’s fees: a real difference for respondents

The fee rules run in opposite directions. In a DVRO case, a prevailing petitioner is awarded attorney’s fees and costs, while a prevailing respondent can recover fees only if the court finds the petition was frivolous or solely intended to abuse, intimidate, or cause unnecessary delay (Fam. Code § 6344). In a CHRO case, the court may award fees and costs to “the prevailing party,” whichever side that is (CCP § 527.6(s)).

The Family Code has one more provision respondents should know. Where a temporary order was issued on facts later shown to be insufficient to support it, the court may order the petitioner to pay restitution for the respondent’s out-of-pocket expenses (Fam. Code § 6342(a)(2)). Before making any fee order under § 6344, the court must find that the paying party has the ability to pay.

A respondent who defeats a civil harassment petition can therefore ask the court to order the petitioner to pay the cost of the defense, and courts do make those awards. A petitioner considering a weak civil harassment case should know that before filing. A respondent defending one should request fees in the response (Form CH-120) and renew the request at the hearing.

Renewal and how long each order lasts

Both orders last up to five years after a hearing. Both can be renewed on a request filed within the three months before expiration, without proof of new abuse or new harassment. The difference is the length of the renewal: a DVRO may be renewed for five or more years or permanently (Fam. Code § 6345); a CHRO may be renewed for no more than five additional years (CCP § 527.6(j)).

A renewal hearing is contested. The protected person must show a reasonable apprehension of future abuse or harassment, and the restrained person may oppose. In a DVRO renewal the governing test comes from Ritchie v. Konrad (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 1275. See permanent domestic violence restraining orders.

What happens if the case is filed under the wrong statute

A request filed under the wrong statute can be denied for that reason alone, because an element of the case is missing.

• A DVRO request with no qualifying relationship. The Domestic Violence Prevention Act does not apply. The court should deny the request, and the petitioner’s remedy is to refile under CCP § 527.6, where the burden of proof is higher. Some judges will allow the petitioner to refile the same day; the temporary order under the Family Code does not carry over.
• A CHRO request between people with a qualifying relationship. The civil harassment statute states that it “does not apply to any action or proceeding covered by” the Domestic Violence Prevention Act (CCP § 527.6(w)), and the California courts’ self-help guide warns that when the wrong type is filed, “the judge won’t be able to make a decision in your case.” Even where a court hears the case anyway, a petitioner who files a civil harassment request against a former partner has taken on a higher burden of proof and given up custody, support, and move-out remedies for no benefit.

For respondents, the wrong-statute defense is one of the cleanest available. It does not depend on who the judge believes. If the declaration describes a neighbor, a coworker, a roommate, or a short acquaintance and the request was filed on domestic violence forms, the defense should be raised in the written response and at the start of the hearing. Our guide to fighting a false DVRO covers the other defenses.

How the two hearings differ in the courtroom

The procedure is nearly identical: a request, a temporary order decided on the papers, personal service at least five days before the hearing, an optional written response, and a contested hearing before a judge with no jury. The restraining order process is the same eleven steps for both. The differences are in where the case is heard and how it is tried.

• The department. DVROs are heard in family law departments by judges who hear custody and divorce matters every day. CHROs are heard in civil departments, often on a crowded calendar with neighbor, workplace, and landlord-tenant disputes.
• The evidence. In both cases the judge receives any relevant testimony, and hearsay may be considered. Because of the higher burden, civil harassment hearings turn more heavily on documents and neutral witnesses.
• The other issues in the room. A DVRO hearing often decides temporary custody and support at the same time. A CHRO hearing decides only the injunction and fees.
• Mutual orders. In a DVRO case, the court may issue mutual orders only if both parties filed their own requests and the court makes detailed findings that each acted as a primary aggressor and neither acted primarily in self-defense (Fam. Code § 6305). In a CHRO case, a respondent who wants an order must file a cross-petition.

See the California restraining order hearing for how testimony, exhibits, and cross-examination work.

When a criminal case is also pending

Either civil order can sit alongside a criminal case, and a criminal protective order issued by the criminal court takes precedence in a domestic violence case. Sworn testimony at the civil hearing can be used by the prosecutor. A respondent facing both should not testify, file a declaration, or speak to police before getting advice. See restraining order vs. protective order for how the civil and criminal orders differ.

How the Restraining Order Law Firm handles both

The firm handles restraining order cases and nothing else. In domestic violence cases, the firm’s results include requests denied after trial at the Lamoreaux Justice Center and the Stanley Mosk Courthouse, an existing order set aside by motion at the Metropolitan Courthouse, and dismissals negotiated at Stanley Mosk, Santa Monica, and the Central Justice Center. In civil harassment cases, they include requests denied after trial in Palm Springs, Corona, Long Beach, and Orange County, including one where a temporary order had already issued; two related petitions dismissed through trial at Stanley Mosk; and dismissals in Moreno Valley, Whittier, and Santa Ana. For petitioners, the firm has obtained domestic violence orders after trial in Los Angeles, Orange, and San Bernardino Counties, including one with $11,000 in attorney’s fees awarded, and the renewal of a civil harassment order in Los Angeles County. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

The firm appears in every courthouse in Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, and Ventura Counties, from offices at 835 Wilshire Blvd., Floor 5, Los Angeles 90017 and 695 Town Center Dr., #1200, Costa Mesa 92626.

Frequently asked questions

Consult With a Restraining Order Lawyer Today

Whether your case belongs under the Family Code or the Code of Civil Procedure decides the burden of proof, the remedies, and the defense. If you have been served with either order, or need one, call (888) 808-2179 or request a confidential consultation with the Restraining Order Law Firm. We will tell you which statute applies, what the other side must prove, and what we would do before the hearing. If the situation is urgent, our 24/7 emergency help line is available now.

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.