California Court Says Indirect Online Harassment Can Constitute Domestic Abuse

A California appeals court has ruled that hostile social media posts, disclosures to relatives and other indirect communications can constitute domestic abuse even when the accused person does not contact a former partner directly.

The Second District Court of Appeal reversed two competing domestic violence restraining-order rulings in a case involving former romantic partners identified as R.M. and A.G. The court said the Los Angeles County judge improperly excluded evidence that R.M. used social media posts and calls to A.G.’s mother to communicate about and allegedly taunt her after their relationship ended.

The appellate opinion was filed May 27 and certified for publication on June 25, making it citable in California courts. The decision sends both restraining-order requests back for a new hearing.

The ruling does not mean that every insulting post, embarrassing disclosure or online argument qualifies as domestic violence. Instead, it requires judges to consider whether indirect conduct, viewed within the full history of the relationship, destroyed the other person’s mental or emotional calm.

California’s Domestic Violence Prevention Act defines abuse more broadly than physical assault. Courts may issue restraining orders for threats, harassment, stalking, unwanted contact, and conduct that disturbs another person’s peace. The law expressly states that disturbing the peace can occur directly or indirectly, through another person or by electronic technology.

R.M. and A.G. met at Pasadena City College in 2022 and later lived together for several months. They ended their relationship in late 2023. Each accused the other of physical, verbal, and emotional abuse during the relationship. A.G. also alleged sexual assault, while R.M. maintained that she had falsely accused him of rape.

According to A.G., their final in-person confrontation occurred on Dec. 17, 2023, when R.M. entered her home and assaulted her. She filed a police report the following day, and officers photographed bruises on her neck, arms, and legs. She later recanted the statement. The appellate court did not decide whether those allegations were true.

R.M. entered a drug and alcohol rehabilitation program later that month. During the following weeks, A.G. attempted to contact him more than 1,000 times through calls, texts, and social media messages, according to evidence described in the opinion. She also appeared outside his mother’s home early one morning in February 2024.

R.M. described the repeated contacts as harassment. He obtained a temporary restraining order in April 2024 that prohibited A.G. from contacting or approaching him and his mother.

A.G. acknowledged that her messages had been incessant and sometimes hostile. She said she stopped contacting R.M. about a month before he requested the restraining order and argued that some of her conduct occurred in response to his online activity.

A.G. filed her own domestic violence restraining-order petition in May 2024. Along with allegations concerning the relationship, she presented evidence that R.M. had changed his social media profile picture to private photographs of her and altered his username several times to include her name and degrading or sexualized descriptions.

One username described her as “psycho.” Others used sexual insults. In another instance, R.M. changed the username to “pleasekillurself” after A.G. had asked whether he wanted her to kill herself, according to the opinion.

The court said the timing supported an inference that R.M. expected A.G. to see the posts or learn about them. The posts did not have to appear in her private messages to qualify as potential indirect contact.

A.G. also testified that R.M. called her mother without invitation and disclosed that she had previously worked as a stripper. The appeals court said sharing private or personal information with third parties can fall within California’s definition of domestic abuse.

Pasadena City College had issued a mutual no-contact directive in February 2024. The order barred both direct and indirect communication, including through social media. Evidence showed that A.G. continued sending messages and appeared at R.M.’s home, while R.M. continued posting about her online.

The Los Angeles County Superior Court held a combined hearing on the competing restraining-order requests. The judge focused primarily on events after the relationship ended and repeatedly stopped A.G. from describing alleged abuse that occurred while the couple was together.

When A.G. raised the social media activity, the judge asked whether she would be better off by no longer viewing R.M.’s accounts. At the end of the hearing, the court found insufficient evidence to issue an order protecting A.G. because R.M. had made no direct attempts to contact her after the breakup.

The judge granted R.M.’s request, citing A.G.’s extensive attempts to reach him and expressing doubt that she would stop contacting him.

The appeals court found that the judge applied an improperly narrow definition of contact.

Family Code Section 6320 permits courts to restrain direct or indirect contact and conduct that disturbs another person’s peace. That conduct can be carried out through third parties, social media, connected devices, and other electronic technologies.

The legal question is not limited to whether a message was delivered directly into the recipient’s inbox. Courts must consider whether the conduct destroyed the person’s mental or emotional calm under the totality of the circumstances.

The appellate panel said A.G. produced documentary evidence of the social media posts and evidence corroborating the phone calls. R.M. did not dispute that he had made the posts and calls. The trial court rejected the evidence because it believed indirect activity fell outside the domestic violence law, rather than because it found the events did not occur.

The appeals court also rejected R.M.’s reliance on cases involving civil harassment restraining orders. California courts apply the Domestic Violence Prevention Act more liberally because it covers a broader range of conduct and uses a lower standard of proof.

A civil harassment restraining order generally requires clear and convincing evidence. A domestic violence restraining order can be issued upon reasonable proof of a past act of abuse, established by a preponderance of the evidence. The person requesting protection does not have to prove that future abuse is likely.

The decision also emphasizes that courts cannot ignore conduct simply because it occurred before the couple separated.

The trial judge had treated the alleged abuse during the relationship as largely irrelevant because it happened in late 2023. California law instead requires courts to consider the totality of the circumstances. The passage of time since the most recent alleged act does not, by itself, determine whether an order is warranted.

Because both former partners sought restraining orders, the appellate court also reversed the order protecting R.M., even though the evidence concerning A.G.’s repeated contacts could have supported that order when viewed alone.

California law imposes additional requirements when both people accuse each other of domestic violence. Before issuing mutual restraining orders, a court must make detailed findings about whether both acted as primary aggressors and whether either acted mainly in self-defense.

Identifying the primary aggressor requires more than determining who initiated a particular confrontation. Courts must consider the history of domestic violence, threats that created fear of injury, the need to protect victims from continuing abuse, and evidence of self-defense.

The parties’ conduct must therefore be evaluated together. A person’s calls, messages or physical actions could appear abusive in isolation but take on a different meaning when considered alongside allegations of violence, threats or attempts to provoke a response.

The appellate court did not decide which former partner was the primary aggressor or whether either person ultimately qualifies for a restraining order. Those questions remain for the trial court after a new evidentiary hearing.

The published ruling clarifies that domestic abuse can extend beyond face-to-face confrontations and messages sent directly to a former partner. Public posts, altered usernames, disclosures of personal information and communications with relatives can become part of the court’s analysis when they are used to reach, shame, intimidate or emotionally destabilize someone indirectly.

Whether such conduct justifies a restraining order will depend on its context, its effect and the broader history between the people involved. What California judges cannot do is exclude it solely because the communication traveled through social media or another person rather than directly from one former partner to the other.