Civil Harassment Restraining Order vs. Domestic Violence Restraining Order: Key Differences
QUICK ANSWER A Domestic Violence Restraining Order (DVRO) under California Family Code §6300 protects against a current or former spouse, cohabitant, dating partner, or family member, with a preponderance of the evidence burden of proof. A Civil Harassment Restraining Order (CHRO) under Code of Civil Procedure §527.6 protects against neighbors, coworkers, acquaintances, or strangers, with a higher clear and convincing evidence burden. DVROs can last up to five years and trigger automatic firearm surrender, Family Code §3044 custody presumption, and mandatory batterer’s intervention if a related criminal case results in conviction. CHROs can last up to five years (recently extended from three under AB 887, effective 2024), do not trigger automatic firearm surrender unless the order specifically includes that finding, and have no related custody consequences. Forms differ (DV-100 vs CH-100). Filing fees differ. The strategic implications for both petitioners and respondents differ. California has four civil restraining order tracks. Two of them, the Domestic Violence Restraining Order and the Civil Harassment Restraining Order, are the most commonly issued. People searching for guidance often do not know which type applies to their situation or what the difference means for outcomes. This article walks through every meaningful difference. (619) 356-1556 Which statute applies and to whom? DVRO — Family Code §6300 Available between persons who have one of these relationships: Current or former spouse, registered domestic partner, or fiancé(e). Current or former cohabitant. Family Code §6209 defines cohabitant broadly to include anyone living together as members of the same household, including non-romantic situations in some circumstances. Person with whom the petitioner has a child. Current or former dating partner. Family Code §6210. Specified family relationships within the second degree (parent, child, sibling, grandparent, grandchild, in-law). CHRO — Code of Civil Procedure §527.6 Available between any two people who do not qualify for a DVRO. Typical settings: Coworkers (where no employer is filing the order; if the employer files, it is a Workplace Violence Restraining Order under CCP §527.8). Roommates who are not romantically involved. Acquaintances and friends. Strangers, online harassers, casual social connections. Distant relatives outside the second-degree family relationship covered by DVRO. If the relationship qualifies for both, the DVRO governs. What is the legal standard and burden of proof? DVRO — abuse by preponderance of evidence The petitioner must prove abuse under Family Code §6203 by a preponderance of the evidence (more likely than not). Abuse is defined broadly under Family Code §6320 and includes: Intentionally or recklessly causing or attempting to cause bodily injury. Sexual assault. Placing a person in reasonable apprehension of imminent serious bodily injury. Engaging in behavior including molesting, attacking, striking, stalking, threatening, sexually assaulting, battering, credibly impersonating, falsely personating, harassing, telephoning, including making annoying telephone calls, destroying personal property, contacting either directly or indirectly by mail or otherwise, coming within a specified distance of, or disturbing the peace. Disturbing the peace was given a broad definition in In re Marriage of Nadkarni (2009) — covers conduct that destroys the mental or emotional calm of the other party. CHRO — credible threat of violence or course of harassment by clear and convincing evidence The petitioner must prove one of: A credible threat of violence. Defined in CCP §527.6(b)(2) as a knowing and willful statement or course of conduct that would place a reasonable person in fear for their safety or the safety of their family, and that serves no legitimate purpose. A course of conduct that seriously alarms, annoys, or harasses the petitioner, and that serves no legitimate purpose. Defined in §527.6(b)(3) as a series of acts over a period of time evidencing a continuity of purpose. The clear and convincing standard is higher than preponderance. The petitioner must show it is highly probable that the conduct occurred. This is intentional. The legislature did not want CHROs handed out for ordinary interpersonal disputes. What are the differences in process and timeline? Filing DVRO: form DV-100. No filing fee for the petitioner. CHRO: form CH-100. Filing fee unless waived using FW-001. Temporary order (ex parte) DVRO: TRO available the same day under Family Code §240. Often granted on the petitioner’s declaration alone. CHRO: TRO available the same day under CCP §527.6(d). Issued more cautiously than DVRO TROs because of the higher legal standard. Hearing DVRO: Within 21 days under Family Code §242, or 25 days if good cause is shown. CHRO: Within 21 to 25 days under CCP §527.6(g). Response DVRO: form DV-120 filed at least two court days before the hearing. CHRO: form CH-120 filed at least two court days before the hearing. Duration of permanent order DVRO: up to five years under Family Code §6345. CHRO: up to five years under CCP §527.6(j), extended in 2024 by AB 887 from the previous three-year maximum. Renewal DVRO: renewable for up to another five years, or permanently. Standard for renewal is whether the protected person still has a reasonable apprehension of future abuse. CHRO: renewable under similar standards. Renewal granted on showing of continuing reasonable concern. What are the differences in consequences for the respondent? Firearm surrender DVRO: automatic surrender required under Family Code §6389 and Penal Code §29825. Within 24 hours of being served, all firearms must be surrendered to a licensed dealer or law enforcement. CHRO: surrender required only if the court specifically finds that the respondent owns or possesses firearms and orders surrender. Not automatic. Federal firearms ban DVRO: federal lifetime ban under 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(8) attaches once a DVRO is issued after a hearing where the respondent had notice and opportunity to participate, regardless of whether the state ban under §6389 applies. CHRO: typically does not trigger §922(g)(8) federal ban because CHRO relationships do not qualify under the federal ‘intimate partner’ definition. Custody and family law DVRO: triggers Family Code §3044 rebuttable presumption against custody for five years. Devastating for any parent with custody at stake. CHRO: no custody presumption. Has no automatic effect in a family law case. Immigration consequences DVRO: not by itself a deportable offense, but the