In California, both Domestic Violence Restraining Orders (DVROs) and Civil Harassment Restraining Orders (CHROs) can lead to a court trial or “evidentiary hearing,” where each side presents their evidence and tells their side of the story. Although the process may look similar on the surface, the two types of hearings differ in important ways—mainly in the laws that apply, the level of proof required, and the kinds of evidence that matter most. A DVRO hearing is governed by the Family Code, while a CHRO hearing follows the Code of Civil Procedure. Because of these legal differences, the court’s focus and what must be proven are not exactly the same.
For a DVRO trial, the judge looks for evidence of abuse as defined by Family Code § 6203, which includes physical harm, threats, stalking, harassment, or behavior that disturbs someone’s peace. The standard of proof is preponderance of the evidence, meaning it’s more likely than not that the abuse occurred. These hearings often involve emotional testimony, photos, text messages, or witness statements showing patterns of domestic violence or controlling behavior. The court can also address related family law issues—like child custody, visitation, and support—at the same time as the DVRO, since these orders are handled in family court.
In a CHRO trial, the petitioner must prove harassment under Code of Civil Procedure § 527.6, which means unlawful violence, a credible threat of violence, or a course of conduct that seriously annoys or alarms the person without a legitimate purpose. The burden of proof is the same—preponderance of the evidence—but the definition of “harassment” is narrower, and the judge generally expects clear, specific incidents rather than ongoing relationship issues. These cases take place in civil court, and the relief is usually limited to stay-away and no-contact orders. There are no custody or support rulings involved.
DVRO vs. CHRO Trial Comparison Chart
Restraining Order)
Restraining Order)
