Two of the most common types of restraining orders are civil harassment restraining orders and domestic violence restraining orders.
Read More
Domestic violence restraining order (DVRO) cases are already emotionally charged. When both parties file restraining order requests against each other, the situation becomes significantly more complex. These cases — often referred to as “mutual allegations” — require courts to carefully evaluate competing narratives, assess credibility, and determine whether either party has met the legal standard for protection.
Contrary to what many people assume, California courts do not simply “split the difference” and issue restraining orders against both parties. In fact, mutual restraining orders are rarely granted unless very specific legal requirements are satisfied. Judges are required to make detailed findings before issuing orders against both individuals.
This article explains how California courts analyze mutual DVRO filings, why true mutual restraining orders are uncommon, and what strategic considerations can influence credibility, evidence presentation, and the ultimate outcome.
The Legal High Bar: Family Code § 6305
California public policy recognizes that mutual restraining orders can often be used as a tool of further abuse or tactical leverage, especially in custody battles. To prevent this, the law requires the judge to jump through several legal hoops before restraining both parties.
The Two Mandatory Requirements
A judge cannot issue a mutual DVRO unless:
- Both parties have filed a written request: You cannot get a restraining order against someone just by showing up to defend yourself. You must have filed your own Form DV-100.
- The court makes “Detailed Findings of Fact”: The judge must specifically find on the record that both parties acted as a “primary aggressor” and that neither party acted primarily in self-defense.
How Courts Evaluate “Primary Aggressor” vs. Self-Defense
When faced with competing stories, the judge’s primary job is to determine the “dominant aggressor.” This isn’t necessarily the person who started the specific argument, but the person who is the overall source of fear and control in the relationship.
Evaluating Credibility
Because these cases often lack third-party witnesses, credibility is the currency of the courtroom. Judges look for:
- Consistency: Does your oral testimony match your written declaration?
- Specificity: Vague claims like “he was mean to me” carry less weight than “On January 14th at 6:00 PM, he blocked the front door and took my phone.”
- Demeanor: While being nervous is natural, a judge looks for “truth-telling” cues versus coached or retaliatory anger.
The Self-Defense Shield
If Person A hits Person B, but Person B only hit back to get away or stop the assault, Person B is acting in self-defense. Under California law, acts of self-defense do not make someone a “primary aggressor.” If the judge finds one party was purely reactive, they will grant the order for the victim and deny the cross-request from the aggressor.
The Role of Credibility
In mutual allegation cases, credibility often becomes the central issue.
Judges assess:
- Consistency in testimony
- Demeanor during the hearing
- Whether allegations are supported by documentation
- Whether the narrative aligns with objective evidence
Exaggeration, contradictions, or selective presentation of evidence can undermine a party’s position. Courts are experienced in identifying retaliatory or strategic filings.
The Risk of Backfiring
If a judge perceives that your cross-filing is retaliatory or “frivolous,” it can severely damage your credibility.
- Judicial Skepticism: Judges are trained to look for DARVO (Deny, Attack, and Reverse Victim and Offender) tactics. If your allegations only surfaced after you were served with a TRO, the court may view them with suspicion.
- Attorneys’ Fees: If your cross-request is deemed to be in bad faith, the court may order you to pay the other party’s legal fees.
The “Double Order” Reality
In the rare event that a mutual order is issued, it creates a “legal stalemate.” Both parties are prohibited from contact, both must surrender firearms, and both are entered into the CLETS database. This often makes co-parenting nearly impossible, as any “peaceful contact” for child exchanges becomes a minefield for potential arrests.
Impact on Child Custody (Family Code § 3044)
The stakes of mutual allegations are highest when children are involved. Under Family Code § 3044, there is a “rebuttable presumption” that someone who has committed domestic violence should not have sole or joint custody.
If a mutual order is issued, both parents may be subject to this presumption. This can lead to a chaotic situation where the court has to determine which parent’s “abuse” was more detrimental to the child, often resulting in supervised visitation for both until they complete a 52-week batterer’s intervention program.
Common Scenarios in Mutual DVRO Cases
Certain patterns frequently appear in mutual filings:
Retaliatory Filings
One party files after being served, alleging similar conduct without prior documentation. Courts scrutinize timing closely.
Escalating Verbal Conflicts
Both parties may have engaged in heated arguments via text or in person. The court evaluates whether either party crossed into harassment, threats, or coercive control.
Physical Altercations With Competing Claims of Self-Defense
In situations involving physical contact, judges must determine who was the primary aggressor and whether any force was defensive.
Final Thoughts
In “he-said, she-said” cases, the party who wins is rarely the one with the most allegations, but the one with the most credible and supported narrative. If you are facing mutual allegations, your goal shouldn’t be just to “hit back” with your own filing, but to clearly demonstrate to the court why your actions were defensive and why the other party’s behavior necessitates a protective order.
Navigating mutual filings requires a surgical approach to evidence and a deep understanding of judicial tendencies. One wrong move can turn you from a protected person into a restrained person.
Minella Law Group Can Help
📞 Call Minella Law Group today at 619-289-7948 to schedule a confidential consultation with one of our family law specialists. We’ll listen to your concerns, assess the situation, and create a clear strategy tailored to your goals.
📝 Prefer email? Fill out our online contact form and a member of our legal team will get in touch with you promptly.
*Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For personalized guidance on your case, contact a licensed California family law attorney.
