When Your Back Is Against
the Wall, We Are Right
There With You
the Wall, We Are Right
There With You
California Criminal Defense and Restraining Order Firm
What Counts as “Abuse” for a Domestic Violence Restraining Order in California? Family Code 6203 and 6320 Explained
Quick answer: For a California domestic violence restraining order (DVRO), “abuse” is defined by Family Code § 6203 and it reaches well beyond physical violence. Abuse means (1) intentionally or recklessly causing or attempting to cause bodily injury, (2) sexual assault, (3) placing a person in reasonable apprehension of imminent serious bodily injury to that person or to another, or (4) engaging in any behavior that a court can prohibit under Family Code § 6320. That fourth category includes threatening, harassing, stalking, destroying personal property, making annoying phone calls, contacting the other person directly or indirectly, and “disturbing the peace of the other party,” which the statute defines as conduct that destroys the other person’s mental or emotional calm, including coercive control. The statute states that abuse “is not limited to the actual infliction of physical injury or assault.” The petitioner must prove a past act of abuse by a preponderance of the evidence.
Key Takeaways
- No injury, and no physical contact, is required.
- “Disturbing the peace” is the broadest category and the one most often litigated.
- Coercive control was written into the statute in 2021, reproductive coercion in 2022, and conduct through internet-connected devices in 2026.
- Judges look at the totality of the circumstances, and a single qualifying act can be enough.
- There are limits. Appellate courts have reversed or refused orders based on ordinary conflict, a single upsetting post, or conduct that merely annoyed.
- The definition applies only between people in a qualifying relationship under Family Code § 6211.
The Statutory Definition, Piece by Piece
| Category | Source | Typical allegations | Common defense issues |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bodily injury or attempted injury | Fam. Code § 6203(a)(1) | Hitting, pushing, grabbing, throwing objects | Self-defense, accident, who was the primary aggressor, absence of corroboration, inconsistent accounts |
| Sexual assault | § 6203(a)(2) | Nonconsensual sexual contact | Credibility, timing of the report, overlapping criminal exposure |
| Reasonable apprehension of imminent serious bodily injury | § 6203(a)(3) | Threats, raised fists, blocking an exit, displaying a weapon | Whether fear was reasonable, whether harm was “imminent,” context of the words |
| Threatening, harassing, stalking, telephoning, contacting | §§ 6203(a)(4), 6320(a) | Repeated calls and texts, showing up, following, messages through others | Legitimate purpose (children, property), whether a request to stop was made, mutual communication |
| Destroying personal property | § 6320(a) | Breaking a phone, damaging a car, discarding belongings | Ownership, accident, proof of who did it |
| Impersonation | § 6320(a) | Fake accounts, messages sent in the other person’s name | Attribution and digital proof |
| Disturbing the peace of the other party | § 6320(a), (c) | Conduct that destroys mental or emotional calm, including disclosure of private information and surveillance | Whether conduct rises above ordinary conflict, free speech limits, totality of circumstances |
| Coercive control | § 6320(c) | Isolation, monitoring, financial control, threats tied to immigration status, reproductive coercion | Whether there is a “pattern,” whether interference was “unreasonable,” ordinary household arrangements |
| Harm to animals | § 6320(b) | Taking, hiding, or harming a pet | Ownership and care history |
Who Can Claim Abuse Under This Definition
The Domestic Violence Prevention Act applies only when the parties have one of the relationships listed in Family Code § 6211: spouses or former spouses, cohabitants or former cohabitants, people who are or were dating or engaged, people who have a child together, and relatives by blood or marriage within the second degree. If the relationship does not qualify, the case belongs under the civil harassment statute, which has a narrower definition of wrongful conduct and a higher burden of proof. Whether a “dating relationship” or “cohabitant” relationship existed is sometimes a complete defense to a DVRO petition.
“Disturbing the Peace of the Other Party”
For years this phrase had no statutory definition. In In re Marriage of Nadkarni (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 1483, the Court of Appeal held that it means “conduct that destroys the mental or emotional calm of the other party,” and that a former husband’s accessing, reading, and disclosing his ex-wife’s private emails could qualify. The Legislature later adopted that language. Family Code § 6320(c) now provides that disturbing the peace:
- is judged on the totality of the circumstances;
- may be committed directly or indirectly, including through third parties;
- may be committed by any method or means, including telephone, online accounts, text messages, internet-connected devices, or other electronic technologies; and
- includes coercive control.
How appellate courts have applied it
| Case | Conduct | Result |
|---|---|---|
| In re Marriage of Nadkarni (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 1483 | Accessing a former spouse’s email account and using private messages | Could constitute abuse. No physical conduct required. |
| Burquet v. Brumbaugh (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 1140 | Repeated unwanted emails, texts, and an uninvited visit after being told to stop | Restraining order affirmed |
| In re Marriage of Evilsizor & Sweeney (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 1416 | Downloading a spouse’s text messages and diary and disclosing them | Restraining order affirmed, including limits on further disclosure |
| Altafulla v. Ervin (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 571 | Circulating information about a partner’s affair to her employer and showing it to her children | Restraining order affirmed |
| N.T. v. H.T. (2019) 34 Cal.App.5th 595 | Violating the terms of a temporary restraining order | The violations were themselves acts of abuse |
| Hatley v. Southard (2023) 94 Cal.App.5th 579 | Alleged control of finances and unwanted communications | Trial court erred in refusing to consider this evidence as possible abuse |
| Vinson v. Kinsey (2023) 93 Cal.App.5th 1166 | Threats and verbal abuse in an on-and-off relationship | Denial reversed. The court must weigh the totality of the circumstances. |
| S.M. v. E.P. (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1249 | “Badgering” during an argument about travel with a child | Order reversed. The conduct found did not amount to abuse. |
| Curcio v. Pels (2020) 47 Cal.App.5th 1 | A single private social media post accusing a former partner of abuse | Order reversed. The Act does not reach all upsetting conduct between former partners. |
These cases mark the boundaries. On one side are intrusion into private accounts, persistent contact after a clear request to stop, and humiliation through disclosure. On the other are isolated statements and friction that any breakup produces. Most contested hearings are fought over which side of that line the evidence falls on.
Coercive Control
Since January 1, 2021, § 6320(c) has defined coercive control as “a pattern of behavior that in purpose or effect unreasonably interferes with a person’s free will and personal liberty.” The statute gives examples, including unreasonably:
- isolating the other party from friends, relatives, or other sources of support;
- depriving the other party of basic necessities;
- controlling, regulating, or monitoring the other party’s movements, communications, daily behavior, finances, economic resources, or access to services;
- compelling the other party 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; and
- engaging in reproductive coercion, meaning control over the other party’s reproductive autonomy.
Three words do most of the work in a coercive control case. “Pattern” means an isolated disagreement about money or schedules is not enough. “Unreasonably” means the judge must separate control from ordinary arrangements that couples make, such as one spouse managing the budget or parents sharing location on a family phone plan. “Purpose or effect” means the petitioner need not prove intent to control if that was the result. Effective January 1, 2026, SB 50 (Stats. 2025, ch. 676) amended the statute to make explicit that this conduct can be carried out through internet-connected devices such as cameras, locks, thermostats, and vehicles. See our full guide to coercive control under California domestic violence law.
What Courts Have Said Is Not Abuse
- Ordinary arguments and rudeness. The Act “was not enacted to address all disputes between former couples, or to create an orderly separation” (Curcio v. Pels).
- A single upsetting statement that is not a threat and is not part of a campaign of harassment.
- Communication with a legitimate purpose that stays within reasonable bounds, such as messages about custody exchanges, bills, or retrieving property.
- Acts of self-defense. Reasonable force used to protect oneself is not abuse, and the primary-aggressor analysis in Family Code § 6305 applies when both sides seek orders.
- Protected speech. Courts may restrain abusive conduct, including harassing communications, but an order that broadly prohibits a person from speaking about a subject can be an unconstitutional prior restraint (Molinaro v. Molinaro (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 824).
- Using the court system. Filing motions or seeking custody is not, without more, abuse, although litigation tactics can be considered as part of a larger pattern.
How Judges Evaluate the Evidence
- Totality of the circumstances. The court considers everything, including the history of the relationship. Events that would be minor alone can add up.
- Timing is not decisive. The length of time since the most recent act of abuse is not, by itself, determinative (Fam. Code § 6301).
- Testimony alone can be enough. An order may issue on the petitioner’s testimony or declaration (Fam. Code § 6300), so credibility is central.
- Reasonableness. For the apprehension category, the fear must be reasonable. For disturbing the peace, the question is whether the conduct actually destroyed the person’s mental or emotional calm, viewed in context.
- Conduct after the petition. Violating a temporary order is itself abuse. Compliance is both a legal duty and evidence.
Building a Defense Around the Definition
- Identify which category each allegation fits. A petition often mixes physical, verbal, and financial claims. Each one has to meet a statutory category, and each category has its own weak points.
- Produce the full record. Complete message threads usually tell a different story than selected screenshots: who initiated contact, whether there was a request to stop, and how the petitioner responded at the time. See evidence to fight a restraining order.
- Show legitimate purpose. Tie communications to children, shared bills, or property, and show that volume and tone were proportionate.
- Challenge “pattern” and “unreasonably” in coercive control claims with evidence of joint decision-making, the petitioner’s own access to accounts, and independent activity.
- Address the relationship element when it is in doubt.
- Raise self-defense and primary aggressor evidence when physical contact is admitted.
- Test credibility on cross-examination. Compare the petition with police reports, medical records, and earlier statements. See defending against false allegations in a DVRO.
- Account for any criminal exposure before deciding what to say in a declaration or on the stand. See restraining orders with a pending criminal case.
Why the Definition Matters Beyond the Hearing
A finding of abuse does more than support an order of up to five years. It triggers the presumption against custody in Family Code § 3044, requires firearm relinquishment, is entered in CLETS, and can be raised in later family, immigration, and licensing proceedings. Some conduct that meets the civil definition also overlaps with crimes such as stalking, criminal threats, and harassing communications, though a DVRO does not require proof that any crime was committed. See how DVROs affect custody and consequences of a restraining order.
Examples: Where Conduct Tends to Fall
| Alleged conduct | How courts tend to view it |
|---|---|
| A push or grab during an argument | Meets the bodily injury or attempted injury category if proven, even without visible injury. Self-defense and credibility are the usual issues. |
| “If you leave, you will regret it,” said while blocking a door | Can be a threat creating reasonable apprehension, or disturbing the peace, depending on tone, history, and what followed |
| Forty texts in one evening after being told to stop | Often found to be harassment or disturbing the peace |
| Three texts in a week about picking up the children | Generally not abuse. Legitimate purpose, limited volume. |
| Logging in to a partner’s email or cloud account and reading messages | Recognized as potentially disturbing the peace since Nadkarni |
| Placing a tracking device on a partner’s car | Fits the monitoring example of coercive control and may be a separate crime |
| One spouse managing the household budget by agreement | Not coercive control without more. The question is whether control was unreasonable and part of a pattern. |
| Cutting off all access to money and transportation | Fits the deprivation and financial control examples. See Hatley v. Southard. |
| A single angry social media post | Usually insufficient standing alone. See Curcio v. Pels. |
| Telling family members one’s side of a breakup | Generally protected speech, unless it is part of a campaign of harassment or disclosure of private material |
These examples are generalizations. Outcomes depend on the full record and the judge’s assessment of credibility.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the legal definition of abuse for a California DVRO?
Family Code section 6203 defines abuse as intentionally or recklessly causing or attempting to cause bodily injury, sexual assault, placing a person in reasonable apprehension of imminent serious bodily injury, or engaging in any behavior that can be enjoined under Family Code section 6320, such as threatening, harassing, stalking, destroying property, unwanted contact, and disturbing the peace of the other party.
Can I get a restraining order against me if I never touched the other person?
Yes. The statute says abuse is not limited to the actual infliction of physical injury or assault. Threats, harassment, repeated unwanted contact, and conduct that destroys the other person’s mental or emotional calm can each support an order.
What does disturbing the peace mean in a DVRO case?
It means conduct that, based on the totality of the circumstances, destroys the mental or emotional calm of the other party. It can be committed directly or through third parties and by any means, including phone calls, texts, online accounts, and internet-connected devices.
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 the statute include isolating the person from support, depriving them of basic necessities, controlling or monitoring their movements, communications, or finances, compelling conduct through force or threats, and reproductive coercion.
Is yelling or arguing considered abuse?
Not by itself. Appellate courts have said the Domestic Violence Prevention Act was not meant to cover every upsetting or uncivil exchange between people in a relationship. Arguments can become abuse when they include threats or are part of a pattern that destroys the other person’s emotional calm.
Can text messages be abuse?
Yes, depending on content, volume, and context. Threatening messages, or repeated messages after a clear request to stop, have supported restraining orders. Ordinary communication about children or logistics generally does not meet the definition.
Can one incident be enough for a DVRO?
Yes. A single act that meets the definition can support an order. The judge considers the totality of the circumstances, and the length of time since the last act is not by itself determinative.
Is financial control considered abuse?
It can be. The coercive control definition includes controlling or regulating a person’s finances and economic resources, and the Court of Appeal has held that this kind of evidence must be considered when deciding a domestic violence restraining order request.
Is tracking someone’s phone or using smart home devices abuse?
It can be. Monitoring a person’s movements and communications is listed as an example of coercive control, and as of January 1, 2026 the statute expressly covers conduct carried out through internet-connected devices.
What if both of us did these things?
A court cannot issue mutual restraining orders unless each side files a written request and the judge makes detailed findings that both parties acted as a primary aggressor and neither acted primarily in self-defense. Evidence of who started an incident and who was defending matters.
Legal Authorities Referenced
- Family Code §§ 3044, 6203, 6211, 6300, 6301, 6305, 6320
- SB 1141 (Stats. 2020, ch. 248); SB 374 (Stats. 2021, ch. 135); SB 50 (Stats. 2025, ch. 676)
- In re Marriage of Nadkarni (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 1483; S.M. v. E.P. (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1249; Burquet v. Brumbaugh (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 1140
- In re Marriage of Evilsizor & Sweeney (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 1416; Altafulla v. Ervin (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 571; N.T. v. H.T. (2019) 34 Cal.App.5th 595
- Molinaro v. Molinaro (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 824; Curcio v. Pels (2020) 47 Cal.App.5th 1; Hatley v. Southard (2023) 94 Cal.App.5th 579; Vinson v. Kinsey (2023) 93 Cal.App.5th 1166
Talk to a DVRO Defense Attorney
Power Trial Lawyers defends respondents in domestic violence restraining order cases throughout Southern California. Whether the conduct alleged meets the legal definition of abuse is often the deciding question, and it is one the petition rarely analyzes. Learn how to fight a restraining order, or contact the firm to discuss your case.
This page provides general information about California law. It is not legal advice, and reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Case summaries are simplified, and how the definition of abuse applies depends on the facts of each case. Confirm details with counsel about your situation. Reviewed by Matthew Barhoma, Esq., Power Trial Lawyers. Last updated November 2026.