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
Defending Against False Allegations in a Domestic Violence Restraining Order in California | Power Trial Lawyers
You opened the paperwork and could not believe what you were reading. The person you lived with, your spouse, your partner, your co-parent, filed a domestic violence restraining order (DVRO) against you. The declaration describes events that never happened, twists arguments into assaults, and paints you as a threat to someone you never harmed. A judge already signed a temporary restraining order based on these allegations alone. Now you may be ordered to stay away from your home, may face temporary custody limits, and may have to surrender your firearms, based on allegations alone. If this situation sounds familiar, you need an attorney who is experienced in defending against false allegations in a domestic violence restraining order.
This happens far more often than people realize. DVROs are filed without police reports, without witnesses, without medical records, and without any independent corroboration. The petitioner writes a declaration, a judge reads it the same day, and a TRO is issued before you ever get to speak. The system is designed to protect genuine victims of domestic violence. But that same system is routinely exploited by people seeking tactical advantage in custody battles, leverage in divorce proceedings, or retaliation against a partner who wants to leave.
If you are facing a DVRO based on false allegations, you need a false domestic violence restraining order defense strategy built around evidence, credibility, and cross-examination. Power Trial Lawyers has defended clients across Southern California against fabricated and exaggerated DVRO claims. This page explains exactly how these cases work and how to fight back.
Fast Answer: Defending Against False Domestic Violence Restraining Order Allegations in California
A domestic violence restraining order (DVRO) in California can be issued based solely on a petitioner’s written declaration, without police reports, medical records, or independent witnesses.
Under California Family Code § 6300, the petitioner must prove abuse by a preponderance of the evidence at the hearing. That means the judge only needs to believe the allegations are slightly more likely than not.
Because the evidentiary standard is low and temporary restraining orders are issued ex parte, false DVRO allegations frequently arise in custody disputes, divorce proceedings, and relationship breakdowns.
Defending against fabricated or exaggerated DVRO claims requires structured evidence presentation, credibility impeachment, and targeted cross-examination. Our practice focuses heavily on restraining order litigation, with hundreds of DVRO hearings handled across Southern California family law departments.
Your hearing is typically scheduled 21–25 days after service of the temporary restraining order. Every day without preparation materially weakens your defense.
California Domestic Violence Restraining Order Legal Standards
To obtain a DVRO in California, the petitioner must prove abuse by a preponderance of the evidence under Family Code § 6300.
“Abuse” is defined under Family Code § 6203 and may include:
• Physical injury
• Threats of violence
• Harassment or stalking
• Disturbing the peace of the other party
• Coercive or controlling conduct
Temporary restraining orders are issued through an ex parte process, meaning the respondent has no opportunity to respond before restrictions are imposed.
At contested hearings, courts evaluate credibility based on:
• Specificity of allegations
• Internal consistency of testimony
• Independent corroboration
• Demeanor under cross-examination
• Evidence of motive to fabricate
The burden always remains on the petitioner. The respondent does not need to prove innocence — only prevent the petitioner from meeting their evidentiary burden.
What to Do in the Next 24–48 Hours After Being Served With a False DVRO
If you have been served with a DVRO based on false allegations, the next 24 to 48 hours are critical. Take these steps immediately:
1. Read every word of the TRO. Identify every restriction, including stay-away distances, move-out requirements, custody provisions, and firearm surrender deadlines.
2. Comply with the order completely. Even if the allegations are fabricated, violating any term is a criminal offense under Penal Code § 273.6. Power Trial Lawyers is a criminal defense and restraining order law firm. We handle these types of matters.
3. Surrender all firearms and ammunition within 24 hours of service if the order requires it.
4. Do not contact the petitioner. No calls, no texts, no emails, no messages through friends or family. Zero contact.
5. Preserve all evidence. Screenshot text messages, save emails and voicemails, download social media posts, and secure any security camera footage before it is overwritten.
6. Write down your version of events while the details are fresh. Include dates, times, locations, and the names of anyone who witnessed what actually happened.
7. Identify potential witnesses who can support your account or contradict the petitioner’s claims.
8. Contact a defense attorney. Your hearing is typically 21 to 25 days away, and building an effective defense takes time. Power Trial Lawyers offers immediate consultations for respondents facing false DVRO allegations across Southern California.
Why False DVRO Allegations Happen
Understanding why someone files a false or exaggerated DVRO is the first step toward building an effective defense. Motive matters at the hearing. The court does not require you to prove motive, but establishing why the petitioner would fabricate allegations undermines their credibility. Power Trial Lawyers sees several recurring patterns:
Tactical Advantage in Custody Disputes
This is the most common motive. A DVRO with temporary custody provisions instantly changes the playing field in a custody case. The petitioner gets sole custody the day the TRO is signed. Under Family Code § 3044, if the DVRO becomes permanent, the restrained party faces a rebuttable presumption against custody. Some petitioners understand exactly what they are doing and file the DVRO specifically to lock in a custody advantage before the family court ever hears the case on the merits.
Leverage in Divorce Proceedings
A DVRO can force the respondent out of the family home, restrict access to shared assets, and create enormous pressure to settle on unfavorable terms. When a DVRO is filed the same week a divorce petition is served, or the same week one party consults a divorce attorney, the timing itself is evidence of motive.
Retaliation and Control
Some petitioners file DVROs as punishment for ending a relationship, starting a new one, or refusing to comply with demands. The restraining order becomes a weapon of control rather than a shield against violence.
Preemptive Strike After Mutual Conflict
Both parties were involved in an argument. Both said things they should not have said. Maybe both were physical. The person who files first frames the narrative. By filing first, the petitioner characterizes a mutual conflict as one-sided abuse, and the respondent is immediately cast as the aggressor.
None of these motives excuse genuine domestic violence. But when the allegations are fabricated or exaggerated, the petitioner’s motive is a powerful tool for defending against false allegations in a domestic violence restraining order.
How California’s DVRO System Enables False Allegations
The DVRO process is intentionally designed to be accessible and fast. Genuine victims of domestic violence need immediate protection, and the system delivers that. But the same features that protect real victims also create opportunities for misuse:
A petitioner can seek a TRO based on a written declaration alone, and courts can grant DVROs without police reports or medical records. That reality makes credibility and documentation central to your defense.
The TRO is issued through an ex parte procedure, without notice to the respondent and without any opportunity for the respondent to respond. The judge hears only one side of the story before signing the order.
The evidentiary threshold is low. Even at the contested hearing, the standard is preponderance of the evidence, not beyond a reasonable doubt. The petitioner only needs to tip the scale slightly in their favor.
There is no meaningful penalty for false filings. While lying in a court declaration is technically perjury under Penal Code § 118, perjury prosecutions arising from DVRO petitions are extraordinarily rare. Petitioners face almost no legal consequences for filing false or exaggerated claims.
The consequences for the respondent are immediate and severe. The moment the TRO is served, the respondent loses access to their home, children, and firearms before any court has evaluated the evidence. The damage is done before the defense begins.
This imbalance is precisely why false domestic violence restraining order defense requires experienced legal counsel. The system does not self-correct. You have to force the correction at the hearing.
How to Prove a DVRO Is Based on False Allegations
You do not technically need to “prove” the allegations are false. The burden of proof rests on the petitioner, and they must prove abuse occurred by a preponderance of the evidence. Your job is to prevent them from meeting that burden. In practice, the strongest defenses do both: undermine the petitioner’s case and affirmatively demonstrate that the allegations are fabricated.
Defending against false allegations in a domestic violence restraining order requires a combination of the following evidence strategies.
Contradictory Communications
Text messages, emails, voicemails, and social media messages are the single most powerful category of evidence in false DVRO cases. If the petitioner claims they were terrified of you, but their text messages from the same period are affectionate, casual, or even hostile toward you rather than fearful, that contradiction is devastating to their credibility. Preserve every communication. Screenshot everything. Do not delete anything.
Social Media Evidence
Petitioners frequently undermine their own claims on social media. Posts showing a normal, happy life during the period when they claim to have been living in fear directly contradict the narrative of abuse. Photos of the petitioner socializing, vacationing, or interacting positively with the respondent during the alleged period of abuse are powerful evidence.
Absence of Corroboration
While the petitioner is not required to have a police report, the absence of any corroboration is meaningful. No 911 calls. No police reports. No medical visits. No photographs of injuries. No statements to friends, family, or counselors contemporaneous with the alleged abuse. The more serious the alleged conduct, the more suspicious the complete absence of any supporting evidence becomes.
Witness Testimony
Witnesses who were present during the alleged incidents, or who can testify about the petitioner’s demeanor and statements during the relevant period, are valuable. Neighbors, friends, family members, and coworkers who observed the relationship can provide context that contradicts the petitioner’s account. Power Trial Lawyers identifies and prepares witnesses as part of every false DVRO defense.
Inconsistencies in the Petitioner’s Account
Compare the petitioner’s written declaration (form DV-100) to any prior statements: police reports, text messages to friends, statements to family, social media posts. Inconsistencies between the declaration and these earlier accounts are strong evidence of fabrication. If the story has changed, grown, or shifted over time, those changes must be highlighted at the hearing.
Timing and Motive Evidence
When was the DVRO filed relative to other events? If the petition was filed the day after the respondent asked for a divorce, the week before a custody mediation, or immediately after a financial dispute, the timing speaks volumes. Documentary evidence showing the sequence of events helps the court understand the real motivation behind the filing.
Pattern of False Allegations
If the petitioner has filed restraining orders against previous partners, made prior false allegations that were not sustained, or has a documented history of dishonesty, that pattern is potentially relevant and may be admissible. Power Trial Lawyers investigates the petitioner’s background to identify patterns that undermine credibility.
Leading California DVRO Credibility and Evidence Cases
Although DVRO hearings are civil proceedings, courts apply traditional evidentiary principles when credibility is disputed:
Nakamura v. Parker — restraining orders must be supported by substantial evidence, not conclusory allegations.
Rodriguez v. Menjivar — DVRO findings may be reversed where testimony is internally inconsistent or lacks corroboration.
In re Marriage of Fajota — trial courts assess credibility based on consistency, specificity, and supporting evidence.
These principles guide how family law judges evaluate whether allegations are genuine or fabricated.
Structured presentation of contradictions, documentary evidence, and motive routinely determines outcomes.
What the Court Looks At in False Allegation DVRO Cases
Judges who handle DVRO cases every day develop a sense for when something does not add up. While every judge is different, family law courts generally evaluate the following when credibility is in dispute:
Specificity of the allegations. Vague, conclusory claims like “he was abusive” or “I felt scared” carry less weight than specific descriptions of conduct with dates, times, and details. Fabricated stories often lack specificity because the events did not actually happen.
Consistency across statements. Has the petitioner told the same story to the court, the police, their friends, and their family? Or has the narrative evolved and expanded over time?
Corroboration. Is there any independent evidence supporting the petitioner’s account? Or does the case rest entirely on the petitioner’s word?
Demeanor under cross-examination. Petitioners who have fabricated their allegations often struggle under skilled cross-examination. They become evasive, contradictory, or unable to explain inconsistencies. This is where experienced trial attorneys earn their value.
Motive. The court will consider whether the petitioner has a reason to fabricate, including custody, divorce, financial disputes, or retaliation, even if the court does not require the respondent to prove motive.
The respondent’s presentation. A respondent who is calm, organized, and supported by documentary evidence makes a fundamentally different impression than one who is angry, disorganized, or reactive. Power Trial Lawyers prepares clients to present their defense with clarity and composure.
Common False DVRO Allegation Scenarios
Scenario 1: DVRO Filed the Week You Asked for a Divorce
You told your spouse you wanted a divorce. Within days, they filed a DVRO alleging a pattern of abuse that supposedly occurred over months or years but was never reported to anyone. The declaration contains vague allegations with no specific dates or details. The timing is not coincidental. False domestic violence restraining order defense in this scenario focuses on the timeline, the absence of prior complaints, and evidence of the petitioner’s motive to gain advantage in the divorce.
Scenario 2: Custody Mediation Is Next Month
You and your co-parent have a custody mediation scheduled. Three weeks before the mediation, the other parent files a DVRO and obtains temporary sole custody. The declaration describes arguments that both of you participated in but characterizes your conduct as abuse and omits the petitioner’s role entirely. The defense attacks the one-sided narrative, introduces evidence of mutual conflict, and demonstrates that the DVRO is a custody maneuver.
Scenario 3: The Petitioner Filed DVROs Against Previous Partners
Your ex has filed restraining orders against two previous partners. Both were denied or dismissed. Now they have filed one against you using similar language and allegations. This pattern is powerful impeachment evidence. Power Trial Lawyers investigates the petitioner’s court history to identify prior filings that reveal a pattern of misuse. A documented pattern of prior filings is one of the strongest foundations for defending against false allegations in a domestic violence restraining order.
Scenario 4: The Allegations Contradict the Petitioner’s Own Messages
The petitioner claims in their declaration that they have been living in constant fear for months. But their text messages during that period are affectionate, making plans together, and showing no indication of fear. In one message sent the day before filing, the petitioner tells you they love you. This type of contradiction is the foundation of a strong false allegation defense, and preserving digital evidence is the first thing Power Trial Lawyers tells every client to do.
Scenario 5: A Verbal Argument Is Described as Domestic Violence
You and the petitioner had a loud argument. No physical contact. No threats of violence. No property destruction. The petitioner filed a DVRO characterizing yelling and harsh words as “disturbing the peace” under Family Code § 6320. While the statute can cover non-physical conduct, a single verbal argument without more does not typically establish the pattern or severity necessary for a DVRO. The defense challenges whether the alleged conduct meets the statutory definition of abuse under Family Code § 6203.
How Power Trial Lawyers Helps in Defending Against False Allegations in a Domestic Violence Restraining Order
False domestic violence restraining order defense is not about denying everything and hoping the judge believes you. It is a systematic process of dismantling the petitioner’s case while building an affirmative record that shows the truth. Here is how Power Trial Lawyers approaches these cases:
Immediate Evidence Preservation
The moment you contact us, we advise you to preserve every piece of relevant evidence: texts, emails, voicemails, security camera footage, social media posts, financial records, and anything else that contradicts the petitioner’s account. Evidence disappears. Phones get wiped. Social media posts get deleted. Acting fast is critical.
Comprehensive DV-120 Response
Your written response to the petition is the first document the judge reads before the hearing. Power Trial Lawyers drafts a detailed, fact-specific response on form DV-120 that addresses each allegation directly, provides your account of events, identifies contradictions in the petitioner’s declaration, and attaches supporting evidence. A strong DV-120 sets the tone for the entire hearing.
Petitioner Background Investigation
We investigate whether the petitioner has prior restraining order filings, a history of false allegations, prior criminal conduct, or other factors that bear on credibility. Court records are public. Prior filings tell a story. If the petitioner has weaponized the restraining order system before, the court needs to know.
Targeted Cross-Examination
Cross-examination is the most powerful tool in a false allegation DVRO hearing. Power Trial Lawyers prepares specific questions designed to expose inconsistencies between the declaration and testimony, contradictions with documentary evidence, inability to provide specific details about alleged events, evasion when confronted with the petitioner’s own communications, and motive to fabricate tied to custody, divorce, or retaliation. A petitioner who fabricated their declaration cannot maintain a false story under skilled questioning. The hearing is where the truth comes out.
Affirmative Defense Evidence
We do not rely solely on tearing down the petitioner’s case. We build an affirmative evidentiary record that includes the respondent’s testimony, witness declarations, communications that contradict the petitioner’s version, evidence of the petitioner’s motive, and evidence of the respondent’s character and conduct. The goal is to give the judge a complete picture — not just reasonable doubt, but affirmative proof that the allegations are false.
Protecting Against Collateral Consequences
Even during the defense process, we advise clients on how to protect themselves from collateral damage. That means strict compliance with the TRO, zero contact with the petitioner even if they reach out to you, documentation of everything, and preparation for the custody implications regardless of the DVRO outcome. False domestic violence restraining order defense is not just about the hearing. It is about protecting your life outside the courtroom while the case is pending.
How Do I Prove a DVRO Is Based on False Allegations?
You prove it by undermining the petitioner’s credibility and presenting counter-evidence. The most effective tools are the petitioner’s own communications: texts, emails, and social media that contradict their claims of fear or abuse. Witness testimony from people with firsthand knowledge of the relationship helps establish context. The absence of any corroborating evidence, including police reports, medical records, and contemporaneous complaints, further weakens the petitioner’s case. An experienced attorney knows how to weave these elements together into a coherent narrative that a judge can follow.
What Happens If Someone Lies to Get a Restraining Order in California?
Filing a false declaration with the court is technically perjury under Penal Code § 118, punishable by up to four years in state prison. In practice, perjury prosecutions arising from DVRO petitions are extremely rare. District attorneys are reluctant to charge perjury in family law contexts because it could deter genuine victims from seeking protection. This means the most realistic consequence for a false filing is denial of the DVRO at the hearing, which is why your defense at the hearing matters so much. Power Trial Lawyers focuses on winning the hearing rather than relying on the criminal justice system to hold the petitioner accountable.
Can I Sue Someone for Filing a False Restraining Order in California?
Potentially, but it is difficult. California’s litigation privilege under Civil Code § 47(b) broadly protects statements made in judicial proceedings, including restraining order petitions. This privilege makes it very difficult to sue for defamation based on statements in a DVRO petition. However, a tort claim for malicious prosecution may be viable if the DVRO was denied or dismissed, the petitioner filed without probable cause, and the filing was motivated by malice. These cases are fact-intensive and require careful legal analysis. Consult with an attorney about your specific situation.
Can a DVRO Be Denied If There Is No Police Report?
A DVRO can be granted without a police report. The petitioner’s testimony alone can be sufficient. However, the absence of a police report is a factor the court can consider when evaluating credibility. If the petitioner alleges serious physical violence but never called 911, never went to the hospital, and never told anyone about the alleged abuse until filing the DVRO, that pattern of silence is relevant. It does not automatically defeat the petition, but it creates reasonable questions that a skilled defense attorney can exploit at the hearing.
How Do Judges Evaluate Credibility in DVRO Hearings?
Judges assess credibility based on the totality of the evidence and each party’s demeanor. Factors include the specificity and internal consistency of the testimony, whether the account is corroborated by independent evidence, the witness’s demeanor (evasiveness, hesitation, anger, composure), prior inconsistent statements, and any motive to fabricate. Judges in family law departments hear DVRO cases regularly. They have seen both genuine abuse and fabricated claims. A respondent who presents a calm, organized, evidence-supported defense makes a fundamentally different impression than one who is angry, scattered, or unprepared.
What If My Ex Filed a DVRO Just to Win Custody?
This is one of the most common scenarios in false DVRO cases. The defense strategy focuses on demonstrating the timing between the DVRO filing and the custody proceedings, the absence of any prior reports or complaints, evidence that the relationship was functioning normally until the custody dispute arose, and the petitioner’s statements or actions indicating a strategic motive. If the court finds that the DVRO was filed primarily to gain custody advantage rather than to address genuine safety concerns, the petition is likely to be denied. Power Trial Lawyers builds this case methodically using documentary evidence, witness testimony, and targeted cross-examination.
Can Text Messages Prove a DVRO Is Based on Lies?
Text messages are often the most powerful evidence in a false DVRO defense. Messages that show affection, normal daily communication, or the petitioner initiating contact during the period when they claim to have been living in fear directly contradict the narrative of abuse. Messages in which the petitioner admits to fabricating or exaggerating claims are especially damaging. Courts routinely admit text message evidence in DVRO hearings. The key is proper preservation and presentation: screenshots with visible timestamps, complete conversation threads rather than isolated messages, and authentication through testimony.
What Should I Do If I Am Wrongly Accused of Domestic Violence?
First, comply with every term of the TRO immediately, even though the allegations are false. Violating the order gives the petitioner ammunition and exposes you to criminal prosecution under Penal Code § 273.6. Second, preserve all evidence that contradicts the allegations. Do not delete anything from your phone, email, or social media accounts. Third, do not contact the petitioner under any circumstances. Fourth, contact a defense attorney who handles false DVRO allegations. Power Trial Lawyers offers immediate consultations for people wrongly accused of domestic violence across Southern California. Your hearing is coming, and preparation is the difference between winning and losing.
Southern California False DVRO Allegations Defense
False allegation DVRO hearings are held in the family law departments of the Superior Court in the county where the petition was filed. Power Trial Lawyers defends against false DVRO claims across all five major Southern California counties. Each courthouse has its own procedures and judicial approaches to credibility disputes, and local courtroom experience directly impacts case outcomes.
Los Angeles County
Los Angeles County’s massive court system handles false allegation DVROs at courthouses throughout the county. Power Trial Lawyers regularly defends clients at Stanley Mosk Courthouse, Van Nuys Courthouse, Pasadena Courthouse, Long Beach Courthouse, Torrance Courthouse, Airport Courthouse, and Santa Monica Courthouse. LA County judges handle high volumes of DVRO cases and are experienced at distinguishing credible claims from fabricated ones, but they need the defense to present the evidence clearly.
Orange County
Orange County family law matters are heard at the Central Justice Center in Santa Ana, Lamoreaux Justice Center, Harbor Justice Center, North Justice Center, and West Justice Center. Orange County courts are generally thorough in evaluating contested DVRO petitions and receptive to well-organized evidence presentations.
Riverside County
Riverside County handles DVRO hearings at the Riverside Historic Courthouse, Southwest Justice Center in Murrieta, and Larson Justice Center in Indio. The Inland Empire’s geographic spread means early coordination with your attorney on logistics is essential.
San Bernardino County
San Bernardino County DVRO hearings take place at the San Bernardino Justice Center, Rancho Cucamonga Courthouse, and Victorville Courthouse. Heavy dockets in San Bernardino County make a well-prepared, concise presentation of evidence critical. Judges have limited time and need the defense to be organized.
San Diego County
San Diego County hears DVRO matters at the Central Courthouse in downtown San Diego, Vista Courthouse, and Chula Vista Courthouse. Power Trial Lawyers handles false DVRO allegation defense throughout San Diego County.
Southern California False DVRO Defense Practice
Power Trial Lawyers regularly appears in DVRO hearings throughout:
- Los Angeles County
- Orange County
- Riverside County
- San Bernardino County
- San Diego County
Each jurisdiction applies Family Code standards differently. Local courtroom experience directly affects credibility assessments, evidentiary rulings, and hearing outcomes.
Wrongly Accused? Call Power Trial Lawyers Now
Being falsely accused of domestic violence is one of the most destabilizing experiences a person can face. Your home, your children, your firearms, your reputation, and your freedom are all at stake — based on allegations you know are not true.
Power Trial Lawyers has defended hundreds of clients against false and exaggerated DVRO allegations across Southern California. Power Trial Lawyers focuses heavily on restraining order litigation and has defended hundreds of DVRO respondents across Los Angeles County, Orange County, Riverside County, San Bernardino County, and San Diego County, with regular courtroom appearances in family law departments handling high-volume DVRO calendars. We know how to find the evidence that exposes fabrication, how to cross-examine petitioners who are not telling the truth, and how to present your defense in a way that gives the judge the full picture.
Call 888-808-2179 now for an immediate consultation about defending against false allegations in a domestic violence restraining order. You can also reach us through the Power Trial Lawyers contact page. Your hearing is coming. The petitioner has already told their story. It is time to tell yours.