How to Fill Out California Form DV-145 (w/Examples) + FAQs

California Form DV-145 is the Order: No Travel with Children that a judge signs to stop one parent from taking a child out of a defined area, such as a city, county, state, or country, while a domestic violence restraining order (DVRO) case is pending or active. You fill it out by listing the protected parent, the restrained parent, every child by name and age, the exact travel boundary the court is ordering, and any passport, itinerary, or bond conditions the judge attaches to keep the child safe.

According to the U.S. Department of State’s annual report on international child abduction, more than 200 American children are reported abducted to foreign countries each year by a parent, and California consistently ranks among the top three states of origin. Filling out DV-145 correctly can stop that statistic from including your child.

Here is what you will learn in this guide:

• 🧭 How to complete every numbered box on DV-145 line by line, with plain-English meaning.
• 👨‍👩‍👧 How to use DV-145 alongside DV-100, DV-105, DV-108, and DV-110.
• ⚖️ Why Family Code § 3048 and the UCCJEA drive what the judge can order.
• ✈️ How the Hague Convention changes your strategy if the other parent has ties abroad.
• 🛡️ The mistakes that get DV-145 orders denied, vacated, or ignored at the airport.

What Form DV-145 Actually Does

Form DV-145 is a Judicial Council order that locks down a child’s travel during a DVRO matter. It is not a request form by itself; it is the order the judge signs after reading your request, which usually appears in Item 7 of DV-100 or in a later motion. The order tells the restrained parent, schools, airlines, border agents, and family courts in other states exactly where the child can and cannot go.

The legal backbone of DV-145 is Family Code § 3048, which lets a judge add abduction-prevention measures to any custody or restraining order when there is a credible risk a parent will flee with the child. The plain-English meaning is simple: if a judge believes your child could be taken and hidden, the judge can freeze travel. The consequence of ignoring a DV-145 order is severe; the restrained parent can be charged under Penal Code § 278.5 for child abduction, which is a felony punishable by up to three years in state prison. A real-world example is In re Marriage of Condon, 62 Cal.App.4th 533 (1998), where the Court of Appeal upheld strict travel limits and a $500,000 bond against a mother who wanted to relocate to Australia. A common misconception is that DV-145 only blocks international travel; it can block travel across a single county line if the judge writes it that way.

DV-145 is not the same as a passport hold. A passport hold runs through the State Department’s Children’s Passport Issuance Alert Program (CPIAP). DV-145 is the state-court order that, combined with a CPIAP enrollment, gives you both the travel ban and the federal alert.

Who Files DV-145

The protected parent — meaning the parent asking for the DVRO — is usually the one who proposes DV-145 to the judge. The judge can also issue DV-145 on the court’s own motion under Family Code § 6323, which authorizes temporary custody and travel orders in DV cases. If you are the restrained parent and a DV-145 has been requested against you, you do not “fill out” the order; you respond to the request using DV-120 and present your own evidence at the hearing.

A practical example: Maria files DV-100 against her ex-husband Diego after he threatens to take their two children to Honduras. Her lawyer drafts a proposed DV-145 listing Los Angeles County as the travel boundary. The judge reviews both forms together and signs DV-145 only after finding the abduction risk credible. The misconception here is that you must hire a lawyer to draft DV-145; self-represented parents can use the Judicial Council fillable PDF and the free self-help center at any California superior court.

When DV-145 Is Issued

A judge can issue DV-145 as a temporary order at the ex parte stage, meaning the same day you file DV-100, without notice to the other parent. The judge can also issue it as part of the permanent DVRO at the noticed hearing, which under Family Code § 6345 can last up to five years and can be renewed. The consequence of waiting until the noticed hearing is that the other parent gets weeks of warning, which can be enough time to flee.

A common misconception is that DV-145 expires when the DVRO expires. It does, unless you renew the DVRO or convert the travel restriction into a stand-alone custody order using FL-341(B), the Children’s Holiday Schedule Attachment, or FL-341(D), the Child Abduction Prevention Attachment.

Reading the Form Before You Write

Before you touch a pen, download the current 2026 revision of DV-145 from the Judicial Council. Older revisions still float around on third-party sites, and a judge can reject a stale version. The plain-English rule is: only use the form dated on or after January 1, 2024, until the Judicial Council posts a newer revision.

The form has a caption block at the top, a checkbox for whether the order is temporary or after hearing, and seven numbered items that describe the travel restriction. The consequence of skipping a checkbox is that the clerk may reject the filing, or worse, the order may be unenforceable because Border Patrol cannot tell whether it is still in effect. A real-world example is Tania F., a San Diego mother whose DV-145 was ignored at the San Ysidro port of entry because the “after hearing” box was blank and the order looked expired. The misconception is that the judge will fix mistakes for you; California judges are not required to correct a self-represented party’s form errors, and many will not.

Gathering the Information You Need

Before filling DV-145, collect: the case number from your DVRO filing, full legal names and dates of birth for every child, the restrained parent’s full legal name, the protected parent’s address (or a DV-250 confidential address request if you are hiding it), passport numbers for every child, and any prior custody or family-court case numbers from California or any other state.

You also need a clear answer to one question: what travel boundary do I want? Options range from “child shall not leave the home” to “child shall not leave the United States.” The consequence of being vague is that the judge will either deny the request or rewrite it narrower than you wanted. A named example: Jamal, a father in Sacramento, asked for “no travel” without defining the boundary; the judge wrote “no travel outside Sacramento County” and Jamal’s ex-partner legally drove the child to Reno the next weekend.

Filling Out DV-145 Line by Line

Below is a walk-through of every field on the current Judicial Council version. Each field gets a plain-English explanation, the consequence of getting it wrong, a mini-scenario, and a common misconception.

Caption Block (Top of Page 1)

The caption block holds the court name, court address, your name and contact information, the other party’s name, and the case number. You write the superior court of the county where you filed DV-100, not a federal court and not a small claims court. The consequence of naming the wrong court is automatic rejection by the clerk, which can cost you a week of safety while papers go back and forth.

A mini-scenario: Priya files in Santa Clara County but writes “Superior Court of California, County of Alameda” in the caption because that is where she used to live. The clerk rejects the filing. The misconception is that you can fix the caption later by interlineation; you must file a clean form, because DV-145 becomes part of the permanent court record and circulates to law enforcement.

Item 1 — Protected and Restrained Persons

Item 1 identifies the protected person, meaning the parent asking for the no-travel order, and the restrained person, meaning the parent who is barred from traveling with the child. Use full legal names exactly as they appear on the DV-100, including middle names, suffixes, and any prior legal names. The consequence of a name mismatch is that CLETS, California’s law-enforcement database, may not match the order to the restrained party at a traffic stop or border crossing.

A mini-scenario: Kenji’s restraining order lists “Robert J. Smith Jr.” but DV-145 lists only “Bob Smith.” A San Bernardino sheriff’s deputy lets Bob through a checkpoint because the names don’t match in CLETS. The misconception is that nicknames are fine because “everyone knows who he is”; the database does not, and neither do TSA or Customs and Border Protection officers.

Item 2 — Children Covered by the Order

Item 2 lists each child by full legal name, date of birth, age, and sex. If you have more than three children, attach a separate sheet labeled “Attachment 2 to DV-145.” The plain-English rule is: every child you want protected must be on the form. The consequence of leaving a child off is that the order does not protect that child, even if the parent later tries to take them.

A real-world example: Aisha, a Fresno mother of four, listed only her three youngest children on DV-145 because the oldest was 17 and “almost an adult.” Her ex-husband flew the 17-year-old to Egypt the next month, and because the child was still a minor under Family Code § 6500, Aisha had no DV-145 enforcement option for that child. The misconception is that 17-year-olds are too old to be abducted; California treats anyone under 18 as a minor for custody purposes.

Item 3 — Travel Restrictions Imposed

Item 3 is the heart of the form. It contains checkboxes for the geographic boundary the child cannot cross. The standard options are: cannot leave a named city, cannot leave a named county, cannot leave California, or cannot leave the United States. There is also a write-in line for custom boundaries, such as “cannot leave the school district of Oakland Unified.”

The consequence of choosing a boundary that is too narrow is that the other parent can lawfully drive five miles past it. The consequence of choosing one that is too broad is that the judge will rewrite or deny it, because under Family Code § 3048 the order must be tailored to the actual abduction risk. A named example: Lupita, a mother in Imperial County, asked for “no travel outside the United States.” The judge rewrote it as “no travel outside California” because the restrained father had family in Mexicali, only 15 minutes from the border, and even a day trip across the border posed a Hague-non-compliant abduction risk.

The misconception is that “no travel outside the United States” is the strongest possible boundary. It is not; “child shall not leave the residence of the protected parent without written court permission” is stronger and is allowed under Family Code § 3048(b)(1)(C).

Item 4 — Passport and Travel Document Controls

Item 4 lets the judge order the surrender of the child’s passport, prohibit the issuance of a new passport, and require enrollment in CPIAP. You check the boxes that apply, write in the passport number if you know it, and identify who will hold the passport — usually the protected parent’s attorney or the court clerk.

The consequence of skipping Item 4 is that even with a perfect Item 3, the restrained parent can apply for a new passport and leave. A real-world example: Daniel, a Los Angeles father, won a DV-145 with a tight Item 3 but forgot Item 4. His ex-wife applied for a replacement passport for their daughter at the San Francisco Passport Agency, claimed the original was lost, and flew to Brazil. The misconception is that the State Department checks state-court orders automatically; it does not, unless CPIAP is active.

Item 5 — Itinerary, Notice, and Bond Requirements

Item 5 covers conditions that allow some travel under controlled terms. The judge can require the restrained parent to give written notice 30 days in advance, deposit a cash bond under Family Code § 3048(b)(1)(F), or provide a full itinerary including flight numbers and hotel addresses.

The plain-English meaning is that Item 5 turns DV-145 from an absolute ban into a managed-travel regime. The consequence of writing a bond amount that is too low is that the restrained parent simply forfeits it and leaves. A mini-scenario: Olivia, a mother in San Diego, accepted a $5,000 bond. Her ex-husband, a software engineer, paid it, took the children to Lebanon — a non-Hague country — and never returned. The misconception is that any bond is enough; Condon explicitly approved a $500,000 bond, and judges have approved bonds tied to the realistic cost of recovering a child abroad, which the State Department estimates at $50,000 to $250,000 per case.

Item 6 — Hague Convention Findings

Item 6 asks the judge to make written findings about whether the destination country is a Hague Convention signatory and whether that country actually honors return orders. Some signatories, like Japan and Brazil, have poor compliance records according to the State Department’s annual compliance report.

The consequence of skipping Item 6 is that an appeals court may later find the order unsupported by required findings under Abbott v. Abbott, 560 U.S. 1 (2010). A named example: Sven, a Norwegian father in San Francisco, argued his country’s Hague compliance should let him take the child to Oslo for summer vacation. The judge made Item 6 findings that Norway is compliant and allowed supervised travel with a $75,000 bond. The misconception is that any Hague country is “safe”; the 2024 State Department report lists multiple signatories with patterns of non-compliance.

Item 7 — Other Orders

Item 7 is the catch-all box for any travel-related order that does not fit Items 1–6. Examples include “restrained parent shall not enroll the child in a foreign school,” “restrained parent shall not obtain a foreign visa for the child,” and “restrained parent shall surrender the child’s Consular Report of Birth Abroad.”

The consequence of leaving Item 7 blank when you have non-standard concerns is that creative abduction strategies — like dual-citizenship enrollments — go unaddressed. A named example: Nadia, a Bay Area mother, used Item 7 to bar her ex-husband from applying for a Russian internal passport for their dual-citizen daughter; the judge agreed because Russia is not a Hague signatory for child abduction matters with the United States. The misconception is that Item 7 is optional fluff; in international cases it is often the most important box.

Signature, Date, and Service Block

The judge signs and dates DV-145 at the bottom. You do not sign DV-145 yourself; this is an order, not a request. After signing, the clerk gives you certified copies. You must serve the restrained parent personally under Code of Civil Procedure § 1011, and you must file DV-200, the proof of personal service, with the court.

The consequence of bad service is that the order is unenforceable against the restrained parent, even though it shows up in CLETS. The misconception is that “he knows about it” is enough; California requires personal service for restraining orders to be enforceable as criminal contempt.

Three Real-World Scenarios

Scenario 1 — International Risk to a Non-Hague Country

Parent’s Move	What the Judge Orders on DV-145
Father threatens to take child to Saudi Arabia (non-Hague)	Item 3: no travel outside California; Item 4: surrender all passports and CPIAP enrollment; Item 5: $250,000 bond required for any out-of-state travel; Item 6: written finding that Saudi Arabia is non-Hague; Item 7: no application for Saudi visa or passport

Scenario 2 — Domestic Move Across State Lines

Parent’s Move	What the Judge Orders on DV-145
Mother plans to drive child to Nevada to live with relatives	Item 3: no travel outside the named California county; Item 5: 30-day written notice and full itinerary for any approved travel; Item 7: UCCJEA registration of the order in Nevada under NRS 125A

Scenario 3 — Dual Citizenship and Hague-Compliant Country

Parent’s Move	What the Judge Orders on DV-145
Father wants to take dual-citizen child to Germany for summer	Item 3: travel allowed within named dates only; Item 4: U.S. passport held by attorney during return; Item 5: $100,000 bond and round-trip ticket on file with court; Item 6: finding that Germany is a Hague signatory in good standing

Three Named Examples to Anchor the Rules

Example A — Maria and Diego (Los Angeles). Maria filed DV-100 and a proposed DV-145 the same morning at the Stanley Mosk Courthouse. The judge issued a temporary DV-145 banning travel outside Los Angeles County, ordered passport surrender within 24 hours, and set a noticed hearing 21 days later under Family Code § 242. At the hearing the order became permanent for five years.

Example B — Kenji and Yuki (Santa Clara). Kenji used Item 7 to bar Yuki from applying for a Japanese passport for their son, citing Japan’s mixed Hague compliance noted in the State Department report. The judge agreed, added CPIAP enrollment under Item 4, and required a $150,000 bond for any approved travel.

Example C — Aisha and Hassan (Fresno). Aisha filed an amended DV-145 to add her oldest child after her first form left him off. The judge granted the amendment under Code of Civil Procedure § 473, which allows correction of clerical errors. Aisha then registered the order in Egypt’s consulate and enrolled all four children in CPIAP.

Mistakes to Avoid

• Using an outdated form revision. The clerk rejects pre-2024 versions, and the consequence is days of lost protection while you refile a current DV-145.
• Leaving a child off Item 2. A child not listed is not protected, and the restrained parent can lawfully take that child anywhere.
• Choosing a vague travel boundary. “No travel” without a defined geography lets the judge narrow the order or deny it, leaving you with weaker protection than you wanted.
• Skipping Item 4 passport controls. Without passport surrender and CPIAP, the restrained parent can replace a passport at any State Department agency and fly out.
• Setting a low bond in Item 5. A bond that is cheaper than international recovery encourages flight; Condon approved $500,000 for a reason.
• Ignoring Item 6 Hague findings. Without written findings, an appellate court can vacate the order under Abbott v. Abbott, 560 U.S. 1 (2010).
• Failing to personally serve under CCP § 1011. Without proof of personal service on DV-200, the order cannot support a criminal contempt charge.
• Forgetting UCCJEA registration in other states. A California DV-145 is enforceable in another state only after registration under that state’s UCCJEA statute, such as NRS 125A.
• Mismatching names between DV-100 and DV-145. CLETS matches by exact name; a “Bob” instead of “Robert J. Smith Jr.” breaks the match.
• Assuming any Hague country is safe. The State Department’s compliance reports list signatories with documented non-compliance.

Key Federal and California Authorities

The federal floor is the International Child Abduction Remedies Act (ICARA), which implements the Hague Convention in U.S. courts. It works alongside the International Parental Kidnapping Crime Act (IPKCA), making it a federal felony to remove a child under 16 from the United States with intent to obstruct custody rights.

California layers state law on top. Family Code § 3048 authorizes abduction-prevention orders. Family Code § 6320 authorizes broad DVRO terms. Family Code § 6323 authorizes temporary custody and travel restrictions inside DV cases. Penal Code § 278.5 criminalizes violation. The UCCJEA controls enforcement across state lines.

Filing Logistics, Fees, and Where to File

You file DV-145 in the superior court of the California county where you, the child, or the abuse occurred, under Family Code § 6301. DVRO filings, including DV-145, are fee-exempt under Government Code § 6103. If you need a fee waiver for related family-law motions, file FW-001.

In Los Angeles County, ex parte DVRO filings go through the domestic violence clerk’s window at the Stanley Mosk Courthouse by the daily cutoff, usually 11:00 a.m. In San Diego, filings go through the Family Court at 1100 Union Street. In San Francisco, filings go through the Unified Family Court at 400 McAllister. The consequence of missing the daily cutoff is that you wait until the next court day for a temporary order, which can be the difference between a child still in California and a child on a plane.

Do’s and Don’ts

• Do use the current Judicial Council DV-145, because outdated forms get rejected and waste days you cannot afford.
• Do list every child by full legal name and date of birth, because CLETS and CBP match by exact identifiers.
• Do request CPIAP enrollment in Item 4, because it is the only way to block a new passport application.
• Do ask for a bond high enough to cover international recovery, because anything less is an invitation to flee.

• Do register your DV-145 in any other state where the restrained parent has ties, under that state’s UCCJEA statute.

• Don’t use vague boundaries like “no travel,” because the judge will narrow or deny the request.

• Don’t rely on email or text notice, because CCP § 1011 requires personal service.
• Don’t skip Item 6 Hague findings, because Abbott v. Abbott requires written analysis on the record.
• Don’t assume the restrained parent will obey voluntarily, because Penal Code § 278.5 penalties only matter if the order is enforceable.
• Don’t forget to renew the DVRO before it expires, because DV-145 dies with the underlying order unless converted to a stand-alone custody order.

Pros and Cons of Using DV-145

• Pro: Same-day issuance is possible at the ex parte stage, giving immediate protection.
• Pro: CLETS entry alerts every California law enforcement agency within hours.
• Pro: CPIAP enrollment integrates state and federal protection.
• Pro: Bond requirements give the protected parent recovery resources if the order is violated.

• Pro: Family Code § 3048 gives judges flexibility to tailor narrow or broad boundaries.

• Con: Enforcement abroad depends on Hague compliance, which varies by country.

• Con: Personal service requirements can delay enforceability when the restrained parent evades service.
• Con: A DV-145 expires with the underlying DVRO unless converted into a custody order via FL-341(D).
• Con: Vague or overbroad orders are vulnerable to appellate reversal.
• Con: Even with a perfect order, an undocumented or determined parent may flee before service is complete.

Recap of Key Court Rulings

In re Marriage of Condon, 62 Cal.App.4th 533 (1998), upheld a $500,000 bond and strict travel limits where a parent sought to relocate to Australia, establishing that high bonds are appropriate when international recovery costs are high. Abbott v. Abbott, 560 U.S. 1 (2010), held that a ne exeat right under another country’s law is a “right of custody” under the Hague Convention, which directly supports DV-145 Item 6 findings. In re Marriage of Abargil, 106 Cal.App.4th 1294 (2003), confirmed that California courts may impose Hague-compliance conditions on international travel even after a marriage ends.

How DV-145 Interacts With Related Forms

DV-145 sits inside a packet. DV-100 is the request for the DVRO. DV-105 is the request for child custody and visitation orders. DV-108 is the temporary order for no travel with children — the cousin form to DV-145, used at the ex parte stage. DV-110 is the temporary restraining order itself. DV-130 is the after hearing restraining order. DV-120 is the response form for the restrained party. DV-200 is the proof of personal service. DV-250 protects a confidential address.

The consequence of missing any one of these forms is that the packet becomes incomplete and the judge may decline to issue DV-145 until the gap is fixed. A real-world example is Tania F., who filed DV-100 and DV-145 but skipped DV-108; the San Diego judge issued only the after-hearing DV-145, leaving Tania unprotected during the 21-day notice window.

Special Issues for Restrained Parents

If you are the restrained parent, you can oppose DV-145 by filing DV-120 and presenting evidence at the noticed hearing. You can argue the abduction risk is not credible, propose a less restrictive boundary, or offer alternative security like supervised travel through a professional supervisor. The consequence of ignoring the temporary DV-145 is criminal liability under Penal Code § 278.5, even if you believe the order is unfair.

A named example: Marco, a Long Beach father accused of flight risk, filed DV-120 with evidence of his stable employment, U.S.-only family ties, and a notarized statement renouncing dual citizenship. The judge narrowed Item 3 from “no travel outside California” to “no travel outside the United States,” giving Marco workable rights while preserving the protected parent’s safety. The misconception is that responding looks weak; failing to respond is what looks weak, and the judge will treat silence as agreement.

County-Specific Procedure Highlights

Los Angeles County uses an ex parte DVRO calendar at multiple courthouses, with same-day rulings if you file before the daily cutoff. San Diego County requires filings at the Family Court division and routes DV-145 enforcement through the San Diego County Sheriff. Alameda County’s Hayward Hall of Justice handles East Bay DVROs and emphasizes confidential address protection under DV-250. The consequence of ignoring local procedure is procedural rejection even when the substance is correct.

FAQs

Is Form DV-145 the same as a passport hold?

No. DV-145 is a California court order; a passport hold is a federal program called CPIAP. You usually need both, and Item 4 of DV-145 is where the judge orders CPIAP enrollment.

Can I file DV-145 without a lawyer?

Yes. Self-represented parents can use the Judicial Council fillable PDF and free help at any superior court self-help center, with no filing fee for DVRO forms.

Does DV-145 expire?

Yes. It expires when the underlying DVRO expires, unless renewed under Family Code § 6345 or converted to a stand-alone custody order using FL-341(D), so calendar your renewal date.

Can DV-145 stop travel inside California?

Yes. Item 3 lets the judge ban travel outside a city, county, school district, or even the home itself, as long as the boundary fits the actual abduction risk shown in the evidence.

Is DV-145 enforceable in other states?

Yes. Under the federal Violence Against Women Act, other states must give full faith and credit to California DVROs, and UCCJEA registration in the other state strengthens enforcement.

Can the restrained parent get DV-145 changed?

Yes. The restrained parent can file DV-120 before the hearing or a later motion to modify, but only with new evidence or a material change in circumstances.

Does DV-145 work against an undocumented parent?

Yes. Immigration status does not affect enforceability; CLETS and Penal Code § 278.5 apply to anyone in California, regardless of citizenship or visa status.

Can a judge order a bond on DV-145?

Yes. Family Code § 3048(b)(1)(F) authorizes a cash bond, and In re Marriage of Condon upheld a $500,000 bond when international recovery costs justified it.

Is DV-145 effective at airports?

Yes. When entered in CLETS and combined with CPIAP enrollment, DV-145 alerts both California law enforcement and federal Customs and Border Protection officers at U.S. ports of entry.

Can DV-145 cover a child with dual citizenship?

Yes. Item 7 lets the judge bar foreign passport applications, foreign visa applications, and surrender of any Consular Report of Birth Abroad, which is critical for dual-citizen children.

Does DV-145 stop a parent from moving with the child?

Yes. Item 3 can bar relocation outside a defined area, and combined with a custody order under FL-341(D), it controls move-away requests under In re Marriage of LaMusga.

Can grandparents or guardians file DV-145?

Yes. Any person with legal standing to seek a DVRO under Family Code § 6211, including legal guardians and certain caretakers, can request DV-145 as part of that DVRO request.