California Form CH-120 is the Order on Request for Civil Harassment Restraining Orders, the official Judicial Council document a judge signs after hearing a petition filed under Code of Civil Procedure section 527.6. The form tells the restrained person, law enforcement, and the courts exactly what conduct is prohibited, how long the order lasts, and what firearm, stay-away, and personal conduct rules apply. You can download the current version directly from the Judicial Council’s official CH-120 PDF.
You do not fill in CH-120 the same way you fill in CH-100 or CH-110. The judge, clerk, or your attorney completes CH-120 to memorialize the court’s ruling, while you, the protected person, gave the facts on CH-100. According to the Judicial Council Court Statistics Report, California courts process more than 60,000 civil harassment petitions every year, and a clean, accurate CH-120 is the single document that turns a request into an enforceable order.
Here is what this guide covers:
- 📝 Every box, line, and checkbox on Form CH-120 explained in plain English
- ⚖️ The federal and California laws that drive each section, including CCP § 527.6 and Penal Code § 29825
- 👨👩👧 Three named real-world examples showing how courts complete the form
- 🚫 The seven biggest mistakes self-represented parties and paralegals make
- 📚 Court rulings, FAQs, and a do-and-don’t checklist you can use today
What Form CH-120 Is and Why It Exists
Form CH-120 is the order portion of a California civil harassment case. The petitioner starts the case with Form CH-100, the court issues a temporary order on Form CH-110, and after the hearing the judge signs Form CH-120 to grant, deny, or modify a longer order. The form is a Judicial Council mandatory form, which means every California superior court must accept it under California Rules of Court, rule 1.31.
Civil harassment under CCP § 527.6(b)(3) means unlawful violence, a credible threat of violence, or a knowing and willful course of conduct that seriously alarms, annoys, or harasses a person and serves no legitimate purpose. The plain-English meaning is simple: someone who is not a close family member, dating partner, or co-parent is scaring, stalking, or threatening you. The consequence of skipping this form is that police cannot arrest the harasser for violating the order, because there is no signed order to enforce.
For example, Tanya, a Sacramento dental hygienist, was followed home for weeks by a former patient. She filed CH-100, received a CH-110 temporary order, and then attended a hearing where the judge signed CH-120 granting a three-year order. Without that signed CH-120, the Sacramento County Sheriff could not enter the order in CLETS, the statewide enforcement database. A common misconception is that the temporary CH-110 lasts forever; it does not, and the case dies if no CH-120 is entered.
How CH-120 Differs From a Domestic Violence Order
CH-120 is only for civil harassment, which excludes spouses, former spouses, cohabitants, dating partners, and close blood relatives. Those parties must use the DV-100 series under the Domestic Violence Prevention Act. The consequence of filing CH-120 against a covered intimate partner is that the court will dismiss the petition and force you to refile, which can leave you unprotected for weeks.
For example, Marcus, a Long Beach landlord, filed CH-120 against an ex-girlfriend who lived with him for two months. The judge dismissed the case under Phillips v. Campbell and directed him to file DV-100 instead. The wrong form cost him 21 days of protection. The lesson is to confirm the relationship category before drafting CH-120.
How CH-120 Differs From a Workplace Order
Employers seeking protection for an employee must use the WV-100 series, not CH-120, under CCP § 527.8. The consequence of mixing forms is that an individual employee cannot get a workplace-only order, and a company cannot get a personal civil harassment order. Each statute has its own evidentiary standard and its own enforcement form.
For example, Priya, a tech recruiter in San Jose, was stalked by a candidate she rejected. She filed CH-100 personally and obtained CH-120, while her employer separately filed WV-100 to protect the office. Both orders ran in parallel. The misconception that one order covers home and work simultaneously is wrong; you usually need two.
Step-by-Step: How to Read and Complete CH-120
Although the judge signs CH-120, the petitioner, attorney, or paralegal often prepares the form for the judge to review. The court’s Self-Help guide on civil harassment recommends drafting a proposed CH-120 before the hearing so the judge can simply check boxes and sign. Below is every numbered item on the current 2026 revision.
Caption Block and Case Number
The top caption mirrors the caption on CH-100. You write the protected person’s name on the left, the restrained person’s name in the middle, and the court’s name and address at the bottom. The consequence of mismatched names is that CLETS may reject the entry, leaving the order unenforceable across counties.
For example, Jorge Ramirez-Lopez must appear identically on CH-100, CH-109, and CH-120; writing “Jorge Ramirez” on one form and “Jorge Lopez” on another can break the database link. A common misconception is that middle names are optional; for CLETS, accuracy beats brevity. Always copy the name exactly from a government ID.
Item 1 — Personal Conduct Orders
Item 1 lists the personal conduct the court forbids, such as harassing, threatening, stalking, contacting, or disturbing the peace of the protected person. The judge checks each prohibited act, and the form mirrors the language of CCP § 527.6(b)(1). The consequence of leaving Item 1 blank is that police have no specific conduct to enforce.
For example, Tanya’s CH-120 checked the boxes for “harass,” “stalk,” “follow,” and “contact, either directly or indirectly, in any way.” Because the judge included “indirectly,” the order also blocks third-party messages on Instagram and through mutual friends. A misconception is that “no contact” automatically blocks social media; it does only if the indirect-contact box is checked.
Item 2 — Stay-Away Order
Item 2 sets the distance in yards the restrained person must keep from listed places: home, job, school, vehicle, and children’s school. The default is 100 yards, but the judge may shorten the distance if the parties share a workplace, school, or apartment building. The consequence of an unrealistic distance is that the order can be modified later under CCP § 533.
For example, Priya and her stalker both used the same Caltrain station, so the judge wrote “10 yards while at Diridon Station; 100 yards everywhere else.” That carve-out kept the order enforceable. A misconception is that a stay-away distance must always be 100 yards; judges have discretion to tailor it.
Item 3 — Firearms
Item 3 orders the restrained person to surrender, sell, or store all firearms and ammunition within 24 hours, as required by Penal Code § 29825 and 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8) under federal law. The restrained person must file a Form CH-800 receipt within 48 hours. The consequence of nondelivery is a separate misdemeanor and possible federal felony charges.
For example, Marcus held two registered handguns; he sold them through a licensed California DOJ-approved dealer and filed CH-800 within 36 hours. A common misconception is that storage with a friend is acceptable; California requires a licensed gun dealer, law enforcement, or surrender receipt. Skipping this step is the most common reason CH-120 orders are violated.
Item 4 — Other Persons Protected
Item 4 lists family or household members of the protected person who are also covered. The judge checks “yes” only if there is “good cause” under CCP § 527.6(c), such as a roommate who witnessed the threats. The consequence of skipping covered family members is that the harasser can lawfully contact a child, partner, or roommate to send messages.
For example, Tanya’s CH-120 added her teenage daughter and elderly mother because both lived in her home and had been frightened by drive-bys. A misconception is that minor children are automatically protected; they are not. Each name must appear on the form for CLETS to enforce protection.
Item 5 — Move-Out Order
Item 5 applies only when the parties live in the same residence and the petitioner has the legal right to exclude the respondent under CCP § 527.6(t). The consequence of an improper move-out is a possible unlawful detainer claim by the restrained person. Judges rarely grant Item 5 in civil harassment cases because most respondents are not co-tenants.
For example, Marcus could not use Item 5 because his ex-girlfriend was on the lease. The judge directed him to civil eviction court instead. A misconception is that any restraining order automatically removes a co-tenant; that power belongs to unlawful detainer or DV-110, not CH-120.
Item 6 — Record Unencrypted Communications
Item 6 allows the protected person to record otherwise confidential conversations with the restrained person without violating Penal Code § 632. The consequence of relying on a recording without this box checked is that the recording can be excluded as illegal eavesdropping.
For example, Priya checked Item 6 so her phone calls from the stalker could be admitted in a future contempt hearing. A misconception is that California’s two-party consent rule never bends; CH-120 expressly creates a narrow exception.
Item 7 — Other Orders
Item 7 is a catch-all where the judge writes additional terms, such as no third-party posting on TikTok, no flying drones over the petitioner’s home, or attendance at a 54-hour batterer’s program. The consequence of vague Item 7 language is unenforceability; police need clear, specific commands.
For example, the judge in Tanya’s case wrote “Respondent shall not post photos, names, or addresses of protected persons on any social media or website.” The order was later upheld in a contempt hearing because the language was specific. A misconception is that “leave her alone” is enough; vague orders fail under People v. Gonzalez.
Item 8 — No Fee to Serve
Item 8 directs the local sheriff to serve the order without charge under Government Code § 6103.2 when the harassment involves violence or a credible threat of violence. The consequence of omitting Item 8 is that the petitioner pays a $40-$75 service fee.
For example, Jorge qualified for free service because his petition described a knife threat. A misconception is that all CH-120 orders ship free; only those involving violence or credible threats qualify.
Item 9 — Expiration Date
Item 9 sets the order’s expiration, up to five years under CCP § 527.6(j)(1). The judge writes a specific date and time. The consequence of leaving Item 9 blank is that the order may default to three years, and renewal under CH-700 requires filing before expiration.
For example, Priya’s CH-120 expires May 19, 2031, at 5:00 p.m. She has set a calendar reminder for January 2031 to file CH-700 for renewal. A misconception is that orders renew automatically; they do not.
Item 10 — Mandatory Judicial Council Findings
Item 10 contains the judge’s findings of fact, including that the respondent received notice and that “clear and convincing evidence” supports the order. This standard comes from Schraer v. Berkeley Property Owners’ Assn., 207 Cal.App.3d 719. The consequence of missing findings is reversal on appeal, as in Harris v. Stampolis, 248 Cal.App.4th 484, where the appellate court reviewed the sufficiency of the evidence and the form’s findings.
Item 11 — Service and CLETS Entry
Item 11 confirms whether the respondent was personally served and whether the order was entered into CLETS. The petitioner files Form CH-200 Proof of Personal Service. The consequence of skipping personal service is that the order is unenforceable until completed.
Signature Block
The bottom of CH-120 has the judge’s signature, the date, and the clerk’s certification. The consequence of an unsigned form is that the order is a nullity. Always confirm the judge’s wet or electronic signature before leaving the courthouse.
Three Named Examples That Show CH-120 in Action
Real-world facts make the form easier to understand. Below are three examples drawn from California appellate and trial court patterns, plus the California Courts Self-Help Center.
Example 1 — Tanya v. Former Patient
Tanya, a Sacramento dental hygienist, was followed home by a former patient who left voicemails and parked outside her house at night. She filed CH-100 with photographs and call logs. After a hearing, the judge signed CH-120 granting a five-year order under CCP § 527.6(j)(1), checking Items 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, and 9. The order was entered in CLETS within 24 hours.
Example 2 — Priya v. Rejected Job Candidate
Priya, a San Jose tech recruiter, rejected a candidate who then sent 200 emails and waited at her train station. The judge signed CH-120 with a tailored stay-away under Item 2, an Item 6 recording exception, and a three-year expiration. Her employer separately filed WV-100.
Example 3 — Jorge v. Neighbor
Jorge, a Fresno homeowner, was threatened with a knife by a neighbor over a fence dispute. The judge granted CH-120 with Items 1, 2, 3, 7, and 8. Because of the credible threat of violence, the Fresno County Sheriff served the order at no cost.
Three Common Scenarios and Court Outcomes
| Petitioner Action | Court Outcome |
|---|---|
| Files CH-100 with detailed log, photos, and witness declaration | Judge signs CH-120 with five-year duration and full firearm surrender |
| Files CH-100 with vague allegations and no evidence | Judge denies CH-120 and dissolves the CH-110 temporary order |
| Files CH-100 against a former cohabiting partner | Judge dismisses and directs petitioner to refile DV-100 |
| Respondent Action | Consequence on CH-120 |
|---|---|
| Surrenders firearms within 24 hours and files CH-800 | No additional charges, full compliance recorded |
| Ignores firearm order | Misdemeanor under Penal Code § 29825 and federal felony exposure |
| Sends “apology” text after being served | Contempt under CCP § 1218 and possible jail |
| Service Method | Enforceability |
|---|---|
| Personal service by sheriff with CH-200 filed | Fully enforceable statewide via CLETS |
| Mailed copy only | Not enforceable; respondent can lawfully ignore order |
| Service by 17-year-old friend of petitioner | Invalid; server must be 18+ and not a party |
Mistakes to Avoid When Preparing CH-120
Even careful petitioners and paralegals slip on these errors. Each mistake carries a real-world price.
- Listing the wrong relationship category, which forces dismissal and refiling on DV-100.
- Leaving Item 3 blank, which lets the respondent keep firearms in violation of Penal Code § 29825.
- Forgetting to check “indirect contact,” which lets the respondent message you through friends or social media.
- Writing vague Item 7 terms like “be nice,” which fail in contempt hearings under People v. Gonzalez.
- Skipping personal service and filing CH-200, which makes the order unenforceable.
- Setting an expiration that does not match the judge’s oral ruling, which can void the order.
- Forgetting CLETS entry, which means out-of-county police cannot see the order.
- Filing CH-120 instead of WV-100 for a workplace order, which mismatches statutory authority.
- Adding household members under Item 4 without “good cause” facts, which invites a successful appeal.
- Failing to renew via CH-700 before expiration, which strips protection overnight.
Do’s and Don’ts for CH-120
Following these rules keeps your order airtight and enforceable.
- Do match every name to a government ID, because CLETS needs identical entries.
- Do attach a declaration with specific dates, times, and locations, because Harris v. Stampolis requires fact-based findings.
- Do confirm the firearm surrender via Form CH-800, because Item 3 alone is not enough.
- Do request the maximum five-year duration when violence is involved, because renewal under CH-700 is harder than initial entry.
- Do bring three printed copies to the hearing, because the judge, clerk, and sheriff each need one.
- Don’t file CH-120 against intimate partners; use DV-100 instead under the Family Code.
- Don’t rely on email service; California requires personal service unless the court orders otherwise under CCP § 527.6(m).
- Don’t accept “apology” contact from the respondent; respond only through law enforcement.
- Don’t let the order expire without filing CH-700 at least 30 days early.
- Don’t forget to update CLETS if you move; outdated addresses make enforcement harder.
Pros and Cons of Pursuing a CH-120 Order
A CH-120 order brings real protection but also real obligations.
- Pro: Statewide enforcement through CLETS means any California officer can arrest a violator.
- Pro: Federal firearm prohibition under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8) extends protection nationwide.
- Pro: Free sheriff service under Government Code § 6103.2 when violence or credible threats exist.
- Pro: Five-year maximum duration under CCP § 527.6(j)(1) gives long runway.
- Pro: Item 6 recording exception aids future prosecutions.
- Con: Petitioner must testify in open court, which can re-traumatize victims.
- Con: Respondent may file an Answer on Form CH-120-related response and seek attorney’s fees if the petition is denied.
- Con: Personal service requirements can delay enforcement for weeks.
- Con: Renewals under CH-700 require new evidence of fear.
- Con: A wrongful CH-120 can support a malicious prosecution claim.
Key Court Rulings That Shape CH-120
California appellate decisions guide every line of CH-120. Schraer v. Berkeley Property Owners’ Assn., 207 Cal.App.3d 719, set the clear-and-convincing-evidence standard. Harris v. Stampolis, 248 Cal.App.4th 484, required courts to make detailed findings about credible threats, which is why Item 10 exists. R.D. v. P.M., 202 Cal.App.4th 181, confirmed that emotional distress alone, without violence or threats, can support a CH-120 if a “course of conduct” causes substantial distress.
The First District reaffirmed in Brekke v. Wills, 125 Cal.App.4th 1400, that threatening letters can satisfy the “credible threat of violence” element. The Fourth District in Yost v. Forestiere, 51 Cal.App.5th 509, held that civil harassment law applies to neighbor disputes, not just strangers. These cases drive how judges fill in Items 1, 7, and 10. The consequence of ignoring them is reversal on appeal and personal liability for attorney’s fees under CCP § 527.6(s).
Federal Law That Backs Up CH-120
Federal law layers on top of California’s CH-120 in two big ways. First, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8) makes it a felony for anyone subject to a qualifying restraining order to possess a firearm or ammunition. Second, the Full Faith and Credit Clause of VAWA requires every state to enforce a valid California CH-120 as if it were issued locally.
The Supreme Court’s 2024 decision in United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. ___, upheld § 922(g)(8) against a Second Amendment challenge, confirming that judges may strip firearms from people found dangerous. The consequence is that a respondent who travels to Nevada or Oregon still cannot lawfully possess a gun. A misconception is that California orders stop at the state line; they do not.
Where to File and How Much It Costs
Most CH-100 petitions are free if they involve violence or threats of violence under Government Code § 70617. Petitions without those elements cost $435 in 2026, but fee waivers are available via Form FW-001. File at the superior court in the county where the harassment occurred or where the petitioner lives.
Each county has its own filing window and self-help desk, such as the Los Angeles Superior Court Self-Help Center and the San Diego Superior Court Restraining Order page. The consequence of filing in the wrong county is delay and possible dismissal under CCP § 395.
After the Order — Service, Renewal, and Modification
Once the judge signs CH-120, three deadlines follow. Personal service must occur at least five days before any contempt action, the firearm receipt on CH-800 is due within 48 hours, and renewal on CH-700 is due before expiration. Each deadline has a consequence: missed service voids contempt, missed CH-800 triggers misdemeanor charges, and missed CH-700 ends protection.
Modifications use Form CH-600 for the requesting party. The court hears the request within 21 days. A misconception is that the order can be changed informally; only a signed amended CH-120 has legal effect.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is Form CH-120 the same as Form CH-130?
No. Form CH-130 is the Notice of Court Hearing used after a denial without prejudice, while CH-120 is the actual signed restraining order entered after the hearing.
Can I fill out CH-120 myself before the hearing?
Yes. You may prepare a proposed CH-120 for the judge to review, sign, and modify. The California Self-Help Center recommends this practice for self-represented parties.
Does a CH-120 order show up on a background check?
Yes. Civil harassment orders are entered in CLETS and appear on most law enforcement, security clearance, and firearm purchase background checks for the order’s duration.
Can the respondent buy a gun while the CH-120 is active?
No. Under Penal Code § 29825 and federal 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8), purchase or possession is a crime while the order is in force.
Is a CH-120 order enforceable in another state?
Yes. The Full Faith and Credit provision of VAWA requires every state to honor a valid California CH-120, provided the respondent had notice and a chance to be heard.
Can the petitioner cancel a CH-120 early?
Yes. The protected person may file Form CH-600 asking the judge to terminate or modify the order; the court will set a hearing within 21 days.
Does CH-120 cover online harassment?
Yes. When Item 1 includes “indirect contact” and Item 7 lists social media platforms, the order covers online posts, messages, and doxxing under CCP § 527.6(b)(1).
Can a minor be the protected person on CH-120?
Yes. A parent, guardian, or guardian ad litem may file CH-100 on behalf of a minor under 12, while minors 12 and older may file on their own under CCP § 372(b).
Will I need a lawyer to get CH-120 signed?
No. Most petitioners proceed without counsel, using the Self-Help Center, but counsel is recommended when firearms, fees, or appeals are likely.
Does the respondent get attorney’s fees if I lose?
Yes. Under CCP § 527.6(s), the prevailing party in a civil harassment action may recover reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.
Can I renew CH-120 without proving new harassment?
Yes. Under Cooper v. Bettinger, 242 Cal.App.4th 77, the petitioner may renew based on a reasonable, ongoing fear of future harassment, even without new acts.
Is CH-120 confidential?
No. California restraining orders are public records; however, certain identifying information such as a minor’s school address may be redacted under Code of Civil Procedure § 527.6(x).
Related reading
- How to Fill Out California Form DV-100 (w/Examples) + FAQs
- How to Fill Out California Form DV-115 (w/Examples) + FAQs
- How to Fill Out California Form DV-130 (w/Examples) + FAQs
- How to Fill Out California Form CH-100 (w/Examples) + FAQs
- How to Fill Out California Form CH-110 (w/Examples) + FAQs
- How to Fill Out California Form CH-130 (w/Examples) + FAQs