In California, Domestic Violence Restraining Orders (DVROs) are issued to protect victims of domestic abuse from further harm, regardless of whether criminal charges are filed against the alleged abuser.

In keeping with California's commitment to offer more protections to victims of domestic violence, Senate Bill 1141 (SB 1141) significantly changed how DVROs can be issued by expanding the definition of "abuse" to include coercive control.

What Is SB 1141?

California SB 1141 is a senate bill signed into law in 2020 that grants the courts broader authority to issue Domestic Violence Restraining Orders based on non-physical conduct.

By introducing the concept of coercive control, this change allows victims of domestic violence to obtain a DVRO more easily without proving physical abuse.

For individuals accused of domestic violence, this change means that behavior previously considered private relationship dynamics—such as monitoring finances or communications—can now serve as grounds for issuing a DVRO.

If you are facing allegations of domestic abuse under these expanded definitions, early legal intervention is critical to protecting your rights and future.

The attorneys of Eisner Gorin LLP can work on your behalf to address any criminal charges arising from alleged domestic violence, as well as minimize the impacts of unfair accusations. Call (818) 781-1570 or use our contact form for a confidential case review.

What Is a DVRO?

A Domestic Violence Restraining Order (DVRO) is a civil court order intended to protect an individual from abuse or threats of abuse from an intimate partner or close family member.

To be clear, a DVRO is not a criminal charge. However, its issuance can have immediate and severe repercussions for the person named in the order, known as the respondent.

The issuance of a DVRO carries significant consequences for the accused, which can include:

• Mandatory Surrender of Firearms: You will be required by law to surrender any firearms you own or possess and will be prohibited from purchasing new ones for the duration of the order.
• Loss of Child Custody or Visitation Rights: A DVRO creates a rebuttable presumption that awarding custody to the respondent is not in the child's best interest. This can drastically affect your parental rights.
• Immediate Removal from a Shared Residence: The order can force you to move out of your home, even if you own it or are the primary leaseholder.

How Were Protective Orders Issued Prior to SB 1141?

Before the enactment of SB 1141, the California Family Code primarily focused on tangible acts of violence or specific threats of harm when determining whether to issue a DVRO.

The petitioner, or the person requesting the order, generally had to provide evidence of physical abuse, stalking, or credible threats.

The grounds for a DVRO were typically limited to:

• Physical Abuse: This included acts like hitting, kicking, shoving, or sexual assault. The evidence often consisted of police reports, medical records, or photographic proof of injury.
• Harassment and Stalking: This involved repeated, unwanted contact, surveillance, or other intrusive behaviors that placed the petitioner in reasonable fear for their safety.
• Credible Threats of Violence: This required showing that the respondent made a threat that a reasonable person would take seriously, causing fear of imminent harm.

While case law, specifically the 2013 ruling in In re Marriage of Nadkarni, recognized that "disturbing the peace" of another party could constitute abuse, the term lacked a clear statutory definition.

This ambiguity often led to inconsistent judicial rulings. Without a clear framework for non-physical abuse, judges had considerable discretion, and it was more difficult for petitioners to obtain orders based solely on psychological or emotional harm.

How Did SB 1141 Change the Law?

California SB 1141 fundamentally changed the criteria for issuing a DVRO by amending Family Code § 6320. Most notably, the bill clarified the definition of "disturbing the peace" and introduced the concept of "coercive control."

In effect, this change codified and expanded upon the Nadkarni ruling, providing a clear statutory basis for orders based on non-physical abuse.

What Is "Disturbing the Peace" in a Domestic Violence Setting?

Under SB 1141, "disturbing the peace" refers to any conduct that, based on the totality of the circumstances, destroys the mental or emotional calm of the other party.

This provides a concrete standard for imposing a restraining order that is much broader than the previous focus on physical harm.

What Is Coercive Control?

Under California law, coercive control is a pattern of behavior designed to dominate and restrict another person's freedom, often without physical violence. 

SB 1141 provides specific examples of what constitutes coercive control, including:

• Isolation: Unreasonably isolating the other party from friends, relatives, or other sources of support.
• Deprivation: Depriving the other party of basic necessities like food, clothing, or shelter.
• Surveillance and Regulation: Controlling, regulating, or monitoring the other party's movements, communications, daily behavior, finances, or access to services.
• Intimidation: Forcing the other party to do something they have a right not to do, or to stop doing something they have a right to do, through force, threats, or intimidation. This includes threats related to immigration status.

Impact of SB 1141 on Protective Orders

With the implementation of SB 1141, the grounds for obtaining a DVRO are significantly broader. Courts are now mandated to consider patterns of psychological and emotional control, even in the complete absence of physical violence.

The key changes in how orders are issued include:

• Broader Evidentiary Scope: Judges now evaluate the "totality of the circumstances." This means they can view a series of seemingly minor incidents as a cumulative pattern of domination and control rather than as isolated events.
• Technological Abuse Recognized: The law explicitly acknowledges that coercive control can be carried out through modern technology. Evidence can now include text messages, emails, social media monitoring, GPS tracking data, and access to internet-connected devices.
• Lower Threshold for Non-Physical Claims: A petitioner no longer needs to prove physical injury or a threat of one. Demonstrating that a pattern of controlling behavior has destroyed their mental or emotional calm is now sufficient grounds for a court to issue a DVRO.

How Can an Attorney Defend Me Against Allegations of Coercive Control?

An experienced legal team can often refute claims of coercive control by providing context to the alleged behavior and presenting evidence challenging the idea of an abusive pattern.

The expansion of what constitutes "abuse" creates new challenges for defendants. Allegations can be subjective and may involve reinterpreting past relationship dynamics. However, several defense strategies are available.

• Challenging the "Pattern" Requirement: A core element of coercive control is a pattern of behavior. An isolated argument, a single instance of checking a phone, or a mutual disagreement over finances does not typically meet this statutory threshold. A strong defense can demonstrate that the alleged incidents were not part of a consistent pattern of control.
• Contextualizing the Behavior: Actions that may appear controlling in isolation can be reasonable when placed in context. A defense can involve showing that the behavior was part of an agreed-upon relationship dynamic, such as one partner managing finances with the other's consent; or arguing that actions were not intended to control or dominate, but were reasonable responses to specific situations.
• Evidentiary Challenges: The burden of proof in a DVRO hearing is a "preponderance of the evidence," meaning it is more likely than not that the abuse occurred. A defense can attack the credibility of the petitioner's evidence by questioning the authenticity of messages, highlighting inconsistencies in testimony, or pointing to a lack of corroborating proof for subjective claims of "emotional distress."

Get Legal Help Today

SB 1141 has lowered the bar for obtaining domestic violence restraining orders in California by validating non-physical, controlling behaviors as abuse.

If you're accused of domestic violence, this shift places you at greater risk of facing serious legal consequences for actions that were previously difficult to litigate.

Don't underestimate the potential impact of these allegations. At Eisner Gorin LLP, we understand the complex dynamics of California's domestic violence laws and can structure your defense to minimize the risks to your rights and freedoms.

Call us today at (818) 781-1570 or use our contact form for a confidential case evaluation.

Related Content:

• DV Protective Orders
• Criminal Protective Orders