{"id":177,"date":"2026-01-20T12:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-01-20T12:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=177"},"modified":"2026-01-20T12:00:00","modified_gmt":"2026-01-20T12:00:00","slug":"r-r-v-c-r-b339866-dvpa-restraining-order-abuse-standard","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=177","title":{"rendered":"R.R. v. C.R. \u2014 Trial Court Erred by Applying Wrong Abuse Standard in Denying Domestic Violence Restraining Order Against Stalking Ex-Spouse"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
Case<\/dt>\n
R.R. v. C.R.<\/dd>\n
Court<\/dt>\n
2nd District Court of Appeal, Division Four<\/dd>\n
Date Decided<\/dt>\n
2026-01-20<\/dd>\n
Docket No.<\/dt>\n
B339866<\/dd>\n
Status<\/dt>\n
Reported \/ Citable<\/dd>\n
Topics<\/dt>\n
Domestic Violence Prevention Act, DVRO, Stalking, Disturbing the Peace, Family Code section 6203<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n<\/div>\n

Background<\/h2>\n

R.R. and C.R. were married in 2014 and have one young son. After C.R. attempted suicide in 2019 and experienced multiple psychiatric hospitalizations, R.R. filed for divorce. The juvenile court granted R.R. sole physical custody with monitored visitation for C.R.; later, after C.R. stabilized on medication, the parties stipulated to unmonitored visitation.<\/p>\n

In May 2024, R.R. filed a request for a domestic violence restraining order (DVRO), alleging that beginning in late 2023 C.R. had resumed delusional behavior and engaged in escalating stalking. R.R. described multiple incidents: C.R. following him home, sitting outside his house at all hours, ringing his doorbell incessantly, entering his home without permission, grabbing R.R.’s father by the shirt in front of the child, picking up the child from school without notice and recording his body, and sending threatening text messages. R.R. also sought a return to monitored visitation.<\/p>\n

The trial court denied the DVRO. R.R. appealed.<\/p>\n

The Court’s Holding<\/h2>\n

The Court of Appeal reversed and remanded with directions to enter the DVRO. The court held the trial court applied the wrong legal standard for ‘abuse’ under the Domestic Violence Prevention Act (DVPA). Under Family Code section 6203 and related provisions, abuse expressly includes ‘disturbing the peace’ of the other party, which the Legislature has defined to encompass conduct that ‘destroys the mental or emotional calm’ of the protected person. Stalking, repeated unwanted contact, threats, and harassment qualify, even without physical violence.<\/p>\n

Here, R.R.’s declaration described a sustained, escalating pattern of harassing, stalking, and intrusive conduct over many months. C.R. had entered R.R.’s home without permission, made physical contact with a third person, photographed and questioned the parties’ young child without notice, and threatened repeatedly to call welfare-check lines. That conduct fits squarely within the DVPA’s definition of abuse. The trial court’s apparent insistence on physical violence or imminent physical injury was inconsistent with the statute’s text and California Supreme Court guidance.<\/p>\n

Because the record left no genuine dispute that R.R. had established abuse under the proper standard, the panel directed entry of the DVRO on remand.<\/p>\n

Key Takeaways<\/h2>\n