Pending Criminal Charges Will Not Necessarily Be Good Cause to Continue a DVRO Hearing
Pending Criminal Charges and California Restraining Orders: What Irvine v. Irvine Means for Your DVRO Case
When domestic violence allegations arise in California, civil and criminal cases often collide. A person accused of domestic violence may face both a petition for a civil Domestic Violence Restraining Order (DVRO) in family court and concurrent criminal prosecution in criminal court.
This setup creates a severe legal dilemma: How can a respondent defend themselves in a civil DVRO hearing without making statements that could be used against them in their criminal trial?
The California Court of Appeal directly addressed this critical issue in Irvine v. Irvine (2026) ___ Cal.App.5th ___. The court clarified that while Fifth Amendment self-incrimination concerns are serious, a pending criminal case is not an automatic “blank check” to delay civil restraining order hearings indefinitely.
Whether you are seeking protection as a petitioner or defending your rights as a respondent, understanding the Irvine precedent is essential for your domestic violence case.
The Case: Irvine v. Irvine (2026)
In Irvine v. Irvine, the husband (Eric) obtained a temporary restraining order (TRO) protecting himself and his girlfriend after experiencing severe harassment from his ex-wife (Tiare). Following subsequent violations and a physical assault at his home, Tiare was arrested and charged criminally, resulting in a Criminal Protective Order (CPO).
The civil DVRO hearing was continued four separate times over five months to allow Tiare to find counsel, address residential treatment, and accommodate her criminal proceedings. At the final setting, Tiare requested yet another continuance, arguing that proceeding with the DVRO hearing while her criminal charges were pending would violate her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.
The trial court denied her fourth request for a continuance and granted a three-year DVRO after holding the hearing. The Court of Appeal affirmed the decision, holding that trial courts must balance competing rights rather than granting automatic delays.
The 5-Factor Balancing Test for DVRO Continuances
Under California Family Code Section 245(a), a respondent is entitled to one statutory continuance to prepare a response. Any further extension requires showing “good cause” under Section 245(b).
The Irvine court established that when a party requests a continuance based on Fifth Amendment concerns from a parallel criminal matter, trial judges must weigh five competing factors:
-
Respondent’s Fifth Amendment Rights: The potential burden imposed on the respondent if forced to choose between testifying in civil court or remaining silent.
-
Petitioner’s Interests & Prejudice: The protected party’s need for prompt, permanent civil safety orders and the emotional stress, lost work, or witness hardship caused by delay.
-
Judicial Efficiency: The court system’s mandate to manage dockets and resolve matters without indefinite stagnation.
-
Interests of Nonparties: The burden placed on nonparty witnesses (such as subpoenaed police officers) and additional protected family members or partners.
-
Purpose of the DVPA: The explicit mandate of the Domestic Violence Prevention Act (Fam. Code § 6200 et seq.) to deliver streamlined, expeditious relief to prevent domestic abuse.
What Irvine v. Irvine Means for Petitioners (Protected Parties)
If you are filing for a DVRO to protect yourself or your loved ones, repeated continuances requested by the other party can feel exhausting and unsafe. The Irvine decision provides key protections for petitioners:
-
A Criminal Protective Order (CPO) Is Not Enough: Respondents frequently argue that a civil restraining order is unnecessary if a criminal court has already issued a CPO. The court in Irvine reaffirmed that CPOs and DVROs are not interchangeable. CPOs generally expire when the criminal case finishes and might not cover additional individuals, such as new dating partners.
-
Protection Against Indefinite Delays: The law prevents respondents from freezing family court proceedings for months or years while awaiting the outcome of criminal diversion or trial.
-
Highlighting the Toll of Postponements: Courts must recognize the burden that repeated hearings place on survivors—including taking time off work, arranging childcare, and the emotional distress of repeatedly confronting an abuser in court.
What Irvine v. Irvine Means for Respondents (Restrained Parties)
If you are facing criminal charges alongside a civil DVRO petition, asserting your Fifth Amendment rights requires careful, proactive legal strategy. You cannot simply rely on the existence of criminal charges to stop the DVRO process.
-
Avoid Blanket Continuance Requests: Requesting that a DVRO hearing be stayed until criminal charges are entirely resolved—which can take over a year—will likely be denied under Irvine.
-
Propose Specific, Short Continuances: Rather than asking for an open-ended delay, request a brief continuance tied to a specific milestone in your criminal case (such as an upcoming settlement conference or preliminary hearing).
-
Request “Hearing Setting Only”: Ask the court to schedule the next date for a procedural setting rather than a full evidentiary hearing, avoiding unnecessary witness subpoenas that frustrate the court.
-
Explore Alternative Legal Protections: Work with experienced legal counsel to evaluate options such as cross-examining petitioner witnesses, introducing third-party evidence, or seeking protective orders or use immunity to safeguard your constitutional rights.
How Galen Gentry Law Group Can Help
Navigating the intersection of California family law and parallel criminal charges requires experienced, strategic advocacy. Whether you need to secure swift, long-term protection under the Domestic Violence Prevention Act or safeguard your constitutional rights while defending against a restraining order, our team is here to guide you through every step of the court process.Contact the Galen Gentry Law Group today to schedule a confidential consultation with an experienced Los Angeles family law attorney.
-
Office Phone: 310-282-7521