How Long Can a California Domestic Violence Restraining Order Last?

The most basic answer is five years. But while a domestic violence restraining order (“DVRO”) is pending, a protected party may ask the court to extend the restraining order. If the judge agrees, the restraining order may be extended for five years or more, or permanently. (Basically, this means anywhere between five years and forever.) But in granting the extension, the judge must conclude that a “reasonable person, in the [requesting party’s] circumstances, would fear repetition of the abuse if the order expired.” Stated differently, the applicant must demonstrate “it is more probable than not there is a sufficient risk of future abuse to find the protected party’s apprehension genuine and reasonable.” There does not need to be a showing of further abuse since the issuance of the original order.

Each case must be measured based on the facts. But the recent case of Navarro v. Cervera (2025) 2025 DJDAR 574 shows when a renewal must be granted. In Navarro, the Court of Appeal reversed a trial judge who denied the request of the protected party (“Navarro”) to extend a restraining order that had originally been granted for a maximum of five years.

In Navarro, the parties broke up in early 2018. In July, 2018, the respondent (“Cervera”), unbeknownst to Navarro, was waiting at Navarro’s office parking lot. Navarro arrived at 5:30 p.m. and was about to get out of her car. At that point, Cervera tried to open Navarro’s car door and began yelling at her to let her inside the vehicle. Navarro locked the door, but Cervera attempted to reach through the window into the car. Cervera was shouting false things about the parties’ relationship. The police were then contacted and located Cervera hiding between two vehicles with a large kitchen knife hidden nearby. Even worse, Navarro stated that Cervera acknowledged that she intended to kill Navarro and that she had previously broken into Navarro’s apartment with the intent to kill Navarro and then kill herself.

Sometime later, the five year restraining order was issued. Then, in July 2019, approximately a year later, Cervera violated the DVRO by contacting Navarro via email and text. Cervera apologized for her behavior, acknowledged that she was not supposed to contact Navarro, and stated that “”I don’t care if I go to jail, you are more important’”. In December 2019, there was evidence that Cervera contacted Navarro again, this time by conventional mail.

Cervera testified that the 2018 incident was triggered by a mental health crisis and medication that made her feel paranoid and suicidal but that she was no longer on the medication. But, as the justices noted, she did not provide any medical documentation or testimony in support of her statements regarding diagnoses or medications.. The trial judge, by contrast, had credited that unsubstantiated testimony.

The justices stated: “[t]he facts surrounding the 2018 incident are egregious and, combined with Cervera’s intentional violations of the DVRO, establish the reasonableness of Navarro’s ongoing fear of future abuse”. Thus, the matter was sent back to the trial judge, with directions to do only one of two things: grant the extension request and renew it for five years or more; or two, grant the extension and make the restraining order permanent.

With all due respect –that’s the phrase lawyers use when they are about to argue or criticize a judge—the record shows that the judge just did not get it. The judge did find that the 2018 incident “was serious and traumatic” but stated that there was only one incident since the party’s breakup and that Cervera “’accepted responsibility for her actions at that time’”. Besides this faulty reasoning, there was the judge’s admission that Cervera had violated the restraining order in 2019. Nevertheless, the judge said that Navarro had “’not satisfied her burden of showing reasonable apprehension of future abuse by a preponderance of the evidence’”.

Perhaps the judge’s biggest error was his “finger wagging” conduct by warning that “’[a]lthough the court has denied the request for renewal and there is no legal reason prohibiting you from contacting Ms. Navarro please don’t. This has been a really unfortunate chapter for both of the parties and it is the court’s hope that you can both put this behind you. If you do not heed the Court’s suggestion you may well end up back in court again’”.

This reminds me of a fight between siblings that ends when a parent says, “both of you, stop it!” Appellate justices hate it when this type of thinking extends to the domestic violence arena. Part of the purpose of the Domestic Violence Protection Act is to vindicate the victim. But here, it looks like the judge was treating the behavior of each party as the same, when, of course, there was no comparison between what Navarro did (nothing) and what Cervera did (lots of things).

Indeed, before the hearing began, the judge asked whether the parties had “an opportunity to talk to each other to find some common ground that would accommodate the interests of both of [their] clients” The judge even suggested that the parties could consider forgoing “the renewal and enter[] into a mutual stay away and no contact agreement.” But courts generally frown upon –and do not approve- mutual restraining orders, especially if they are not subject to the California Law Enforcement Telecommunication System (CLETS), which all California restraining orders are.

Not surprisingly, the Court of Appeal’s decision was unanimous. All three justices voted for reversal. And the case was certified for publication, which means that it is binding authority on all trial courts throughout the State of California.

It is important to remember that the right to seek a renewal of a restraining order under California’s statutory framework lapses if the request is not made before the original restraining order ends.