R.R. v. C.R. (2026) ___Cal.Rptr.3d_____

R.R. sought a DVRO against his child’s mother, C.R. In his request, R.R. stated C.R. was stalking him. According to R.R., C.R. sat in her car outside of his house late at night, repeatedly rang his doorbell, refused to leave his house, and followed him when he was driving on the highway. At the hearing, C.R. admitted she went to R.R.’s house many times, refused to leave, and followed him on one occasion.

The trial court described C.R.’s behavior as obsessive but denied R.R.’s request for a DVRO.  The court ruled C.R.’s actions was not abuse because they were not meant to threaten or intimidate R.R.

R.R. appealed the decision. The Court of Appeal disagreed with the trial court and ordered the trial court to enter the DVRO.  The Court of Appeal explained that R.R. did not need to show that C.R. intended to threaten or intimidate him to show abuse. The court also explained that R.R. did not need to show that future abuse was likely.