- Free Consultation: (888) 808-2179 Tap Here to Call Us
What Counts as “Abuse” in a California DVRO? 15 Court Decisions on Disturbing the Peace and Coercive Control That Show Where Judges Draw the Line
By Matthew Barhoma, founding attorney, Power Trial Lawyers. Last updated November 2026.
Quick answer: In a California domestic violence restraining order (DVRO) case, “abuse” means bodily injury or attempted injury, sexual assault, causing reasonable fear of imminent serious bodily injury, or any behavior a court could prohibit under Family Code section 6320, including harassment, stalking, threats, property destruction, and “disturbing the peace of the other party.” Disturbing the peace means conduct that, based on the totality of the circumstances, destroys the other person’s mental or emotional calm, and it includes coercive control. Physical violence is not required. But appellate courts have also held that ordinary conflict, isolated rude behavior, and a single private post do not qualify.
This article is for people who have been served with a DVRO petition built on non-physical allegations. For the statutory text section by section, see our practice pages on what counts as abuse under Family Code 6203 and 6320 and coercive control under California law. This article does something different: it shows how the Court of Appeal has actually ruled on specific conduct.
The statutory definition in four parts
Under Family Code section 6203, abuse is any one of the following:
- Intentionally or recklessly causing or attempting to cause bodily injury.
- Sexual assault.
- Placing a person in reasonable apprehension of imminent serious bodily injury to that person or to another.
- Engaging in any behavior that has been or could be enjoined under Family Code section 6320.
Section 6203 also states that abuse is not limited to the actual infliction of physical injury or assault. The fourth category is where most contested hearings are fought.
What “disturbing the peace” means
Family Code section 6320, subdivision (c), defines “disturbing the peace of the other party” as conduct that, based on the totality of the circumstances, destroys the mental or emotional calm of the other party. The definition comes from In re Marriage of Nadkarni (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 1483 and was written into the statute by Senate Bill 1141, effective January 1, 2021.
The statute says this conduct may be committed directly or indirectly, including through third parties, and by any method, including telephone, online accounts, text messages, internet-connected devices, or other electronic technologies. Senate Bill 50, effective January 1, 2026, amended section 6320 to make explicit that disturbing the peace and coercive control can be carried out through connected devices such as smart home systems, vehicles, and wearables.
What “coercive control” means
Coercive control is a pattern of behavior that in purpose or effect unreasonably interferes with a person’s free will and personal liberty. Section 6320 gives examples, and the list is not exclusive:
- Isolating the other person from friends, relatives, or other sources of support.
- Depriving the other person of basic necessities.
- Controlling, regulating, or monitoring the other person’s movements, communications, daily behavior, finances, economic resources, or access to services.
- Compelling the other person by force, threat of force, or intimidation, including threats based on actual or suspected immigration status, to do something they have a right not to do or to abstain from something they have a right to do.
- Reproductive coercion, meaning control over the reproductive autonomy of another through force, threat, or intimidation (added effective January 1, 2022).
Two words in the definition matter for the defense: “pattern” and “unreasonably.” One incident is not a pattern, and not every disagreement about money, schedules, or parenting is unreasonable interference with liberty.
Ten decisions where the conduct qualified as abuse
| Case | Conduct | Result |
|---|---|---|
| In re Marriage of Nadkarni (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 1483 | Accessing, reading, and publicly disclosing a former spouse’s confidential emails | Could be abuse; dismissal of the petition reversed |
| Burquet v. Brumbaugh (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 1140 | Repeated unwanted emails and texts and showing up at the home unannounced after being told to stop | DVRO affirmed |
| In re Marriage of Evilsizor and Sweeney (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 1416 | Downloading a spouse’s text messages and private notes from her phones and disclosing or threatening to disclose them | DVRO affirmed |
| Altafulla v. Ervin (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 571 | Sending details of a partner’s affair to her employer and others and exposing the children to it | DVRO affirmed |
| Rodriguez v. Menjivar (2015) 243 Cal.App.4th 816 | Controlling and isolating behavior and threats, without recent physical violence | Denial reversed; mental abuse is abuse |
| Phillips v. Campbell (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 844 | Harassing texts and social media posts after a relationship ended | DVRO affirmed |
| N.T. v. H.T. (2019) 34 Cal.App.5th 595 | Violating the terms of the temporary restraining order | Denial reversed; violating a TRO is itself abuse |
| McCord v. Smith (2020) 51 Cal.App.5th 358 | Showing up uninvited, repeated contact, and a text implying a threat to the petitioner’s professional license | DVRO affirmed |
| Vinson v. Kinsey (2023) 93 Cal.App.5th 1166 | Threats and controlling behavior that the trial court discounted | Denial reversed; court must weigh the totality of the circumstances |
| Hatley v. Southard (2023) 94 Cal.App.5th 579 | Control over money and access to financial resources | Denial reversed; financial control can be abuse |
The pattern in these cases: privacy invasions, persistent contact after a clear request to stop, public humiliation campaigns, threats aimed at livelihood, and financial domination have all been treated as conduct that destroys mental or emotional calm.
Five decisions where the conduct did not qualify
| Case | Conduct | Result |
|---|---|---|
| S.M. v. E.P. (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1249 | “Badgering” during an argument about traveling with the child | Order reversed; the trial court’s own remarks showed it had not found abuse |
| Curcio v. Pels (2020) 47 Cal.App.5th 1 | A single private social media post accusing the petitioner of abuse | DVRO reversed |
| Jennifer K. v. Shane K. (2020) 47 Cal.App.5th 558 | An incident of punching a refrigerator door near the spouse and older alleged incidents | Denial affirmed; credibility and context are for the trial judge |
| In re Marriage of L.R. and K.A. (2021) 66 Cal.App.5th 1130 | Berating the other parent at an urgent care clinic and taking the child home in violation of the custody order | DVRO reversed; not abuse under the DVPA |
| K.L. v. R.H. (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 965 | A mother’s largely nonviolent communications during custody disputes | Order against the mother reversed; mutual orders require the findings in Family Code section 6305 |
The pattern in these cases: courts distinguish conduct that is unpleasant, immature, or even a violation of some other court order from conduct that the Domestic Violence Prevention Act defines as abuse. As the Court of Appeal has explained in this line of cases, the Act was not intended to reach every unpleasant interaction between former partners.
Is this abuse? Common allegations and how courts have treated them
| Allegation | How courts have treated it | Key authority |
|---|---|---|
| One angry or insulting text | Usually not enough by itself | Curcio v. Pels |
| Dozens of texts after being told to stop | Can be abuse | Burquet v. Brumbaugh |
| Raised voices during a mutual argument | Usually not enough without more | S.M. v. E.P. |
| Reading or copying a partner’s phone or email and using it against them | Can be abuse | Nadkarni; Evilsizor and Sweeney |
| Posting about an ex online | Depends on volume, audience, and content | Curcio (one private post, no); Phillips (campaign, yes) |
| Telling an employer or family about private matters | Can be abuse | Altafulla v. Ervin |
| Controlling all household money | Can be coercive control if it is a pattern | Hatley v. Southard |
| Violating a custody exchange order | Not automatically abuse | L.R. and K.A. |
| Contacting the petitioner while a TRO is in place | Abuse, and a crime | N.T. v. H.T.; Penal Code 273.6 |
| Tracking location through an app or device | Can be coercive control; statute names monitoring and connected devices | Family Code 6320(c) |
No table can decide a case. Judges apply the totality of the circumstances, and the same act can land on either side depending on frequency, context, and credibility.
Five principles the cases establish
- Non-physical conduct counts. A petitioner does not need injuries, a police report, or a threat of violence.
- The standard is high, not trivial. The conduct must destroy mental or emotional calm. Annoyance, embarrassment, and hurt feelings are not the test.
- Coercive control requires a pattern and unreasonableness. Isolated incidents and ordinary household disagreements do not meet the definition.
- Context and credibility belong to the trial judge. Appellate courts defer to the trial court’s view of who was believable, which is why the hearing itself is where the case is won.
- The burden never shifts. The petitioner must prove abuse by a preponderance of the evidence, and a temporary order creates no presumption that abuse occurred (Curcio v. Pels).
How a respondent defends a disturbing the peace or coercive control allegation
- Break the petition into separate acts. Put each alleged act next to the statutory definition and ask whether it fits one of the four categories in section 6203.
- Supply the missing context. Produce full message threads showing two-way communication, the petitioner initiating contact, or agreement on the very arrangement now described as control.
- Contest the pattern. Show that the incidents are few, far apart, or explained by a specific event such as a custody dispute.
- Offer legitimate purposes. A shared budget, a location-sharing setting both people turned on, or messages limited to the children’s schedule have explanations a court will consider.
- Show the petitioner’s calm was not destroyed. Friendly messages, invitations, and continued voluntary contact after the alleged abuse are relevant to whether mental or emotional calm was destroyed.
- Avoid proving the petitioner’s case. Contact during the temporary order is abuse under N.T. v. H.T. and can supply the proof that was otherwise missing.
The full hearing strategy is in our guide on how to beat a domestic violence restraining order in California.
Why the definition matters beyond the restraining order
A finding of abuse does more than support the order. It triggers the custody presumption in Family Code section 3044, which expressly reaches a person who has engaged in behavior that could be enjoined under section 6320, including disturbing the peace. That means a finding based only on texts or control over finances can still cost a parent joint custody. See how to rebut the Family Code 3044 presumption. An order based on conduct that does not legally qualify as abuse can be challenged on appeal, as in Curcio and L.R. and K.A. See appealing a DVRO in California.
Frequently asked questions
Can you get a restraining order for emotional abuse in California?
Yes. Family Code section 6203 states that abuse is not limited to physical injury, and section 6320 covers conduct that destroys a person’s mental or emotional calm. The petitioner must still prove specific conduct by a preponderance of the evidence.
Is yelling or arguing considered domestic violence for a DVRO?
Arguing alone is usually not enough. Courts look at the totality of the circumstances. Yelling combined with threats, repeated unwanted contact, property destruction, or a pattern of control can qualify, while a mutual argument without more generally does not.
Is sending text messages abuse?
It depends on volume, content, and whether the sender was told to stop. In Burquet v. Brumbaugh, repeated unwanted texts and emails after a request to stop supported a DVRO. In Curcio v. Pels, a single private social media post did not.
What is coercive control under California law?
Coercive control is a pattern of behavior that in purpose or effect unreasonably interferes with a person’s free will and personal liberty. Examples in Family Code section 6320 include isolating a person from support, depriving them of necessities, and controlling or monitoring their movements, communications, and finances.
Is checking my partner’s phone domestic abuse?
It can be. In In re Marriage of Nadkarni and In re Marriage of Evilsizor and Sweeney, accessing a partner’s private communications and disclosing or threatening to disclose them was treated as conduct that can disturb the peace under the Domestic Violence Prevention Act.
Is financial control domestic violence in California?
It can be. Section 6320 lists controlling or regulating a person’s finances and economic resources as an example of coercive control, and Hatley v. Southard held that a trial court erred by treating financial control as outside the definition of abuse.
Does one incident count as abuse?
One incident of physical injury, sexual assault, or a credible threat of serious bodily injury can be enough. Coercive control, by definition, requires a pattern. A single non-violent incident is weaker and was held insufficient in Curcio v. Pels.
Does violating a custody order count as domestic violence?
Not automatically. In In re Marriage of L.R. and K.A., the Court of Appeal reversed a DVRO that rested on a parent taking the child home in violation of a custody order, holding the conduct did not rise to abuse under the Domestic Violence Prevention Act.
Can tracking someone’s location be grounds for a DVRO?
Yes. Section 6320 names monitoring a person’s movements as an example of coercive control and, since January 1, 2026, expressly covers conduct carried out through connected devices. Whether it qualifies in a given case depends on consent, purpose, and pattern.
What if the judge agrees I behaved badly but it was not abuse?
Then the petition should be denied. The Domestic Violence Prevention Act requires proof of abuse as the statute defines it. S.M. v. E.P. and L.R. and K.A. are examples of orders reversed because the conduct found did not meet that definition.
Talk to a California DVRO defense lawyer
Power Trial Lawyers defends respondents against domestic violence restraining orders based on disturbing the peace and coercive control allegations throughout Southern California. If you have been served and are looking to retain an attorney for your hearing, call (888) 808-2179 or contact us.
This article is general information, not legal advice, and reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Case summaries are simplified; read the full opinions before relying on them. Statutes cited are current as of November 2026. Past results do not guarantee a similar outcome.