A recent case has again come down from the Appellate Courts, upholding the broad definition of abuse. In Burquet v. Brumbaugh (2014), the parties were in a dating relationship until she announced the relationship was over and terminated their relationship. This is when the ex-boyfriend started to get into trouble. He continued to contact her seeking to have her reconsider her position. She continued to request that he not contact her. Despite her request, he continued to contact her and attempt reconciliation. Not only did he ignore her requests, but his communications became more and more inappropriate, and his temper would flare. Refusing to take no for an answer, he appeared at her house unannounced and uninvited. He continued to pledge his love for her. She had had enough by this time and told him to leave or she would call the police. After about 10 minutes, he finally left. Thereafter, she went to court to obtain a restraining order. The trial court granted the restraining order based on Family Code, 6320(d), which allows a restraining order to be issued when evidence is presented that shows the restrained person disturbed the peace of the other party.
The basics of the appeal are that disturbing the peace is not defined by the legislature, and the court should follow the definition as outlined in a criminal case, which says disturbing the peace is disrupting public order by acts of violence or threats of violence. The court went on to look at the broad definition of ‘abuse’ provided by the legislature and then the common understanding and definitions of disturb and peace, and concluded that the phrase disturbing the peace is properly understood as ‘conduct that destroys the emotional or mental calm of the other party’.
The bottom line is, this case is another that shows how serious the legislature and courts are when considering domestic violence and that they err, if at all, on the side of a broad definition rather than the narrower view.
In the context of California Family Law, disturbing the peace refers to conduct that disrupts the emotional or mental well-being of another person within an intimate or familial relationship. This broader interpretation protects victims from non-physical forms of abuse.
This statute allows courts to issue a Domestic Violence Restraining Order (DVRO) when there is evidence that the restrained person has disturbed the peace of the protected party. Notably, no physical violence is required; emotional or psychological harm is sufficient.
As confirmed in Burquet v. Brumbaugh, emotional and psychological harm alone can justify a restraining order.
Aspect | Civil DVRO | Criminal Case |
---|---|---|
Initiator | Victim | State (Prosecutor) |
Goal | Protection of the victim | Punishment of the offender |
Burden of Proof | Preponderance of the evidence | Beyond a reasonable doubt |
Outcome | Restraining order | Jail, fines, probation |
Both processes can run simultaneously.
A Domestic Violence Restraining Order (DVRO) is a legal protection that prevents an abuser from contacting or approaching the victim.
Yes. California law protects against emotional, psychological, and verbal abuse.
Temporary orders last 21–25 days; final orders can last up to 5 years.
Texts, emails, voicemails, witness statements, photos, police reports.
They may face arrest, criminal charges, fines, or jail time.
Yes, AI voice or text manipulation could raise evidentiary challenges in future cases, requiring courts to adapt legal standards for digital forensics.
At DivorceDigest.com, we’re here to support you. Whether you’re navigating a difficult relationship, considering legal action, or seeking resources, we provide trusted guidance.
Visit our Domestic Violence Resources
Need immediate help? Contact the National Domestic Violence Hotline at 1-800-799-SAFE.