California Form DV-250 is the Response to Request to Renew Restraining Order, and you fill it out by completing the case caption, answering each numbered item with checkboxes and short statements, attaching declarations and exhibits, signing under penalty of perjury, and serving the petitioner before the hearing. The form lives on the Judicial Council DV-250 page and works alongside Family Code section 6345, which governs renewal of domestic violence restraining orders.
If a petitioner files Form DV-200 Request to Renew Restraining Order, you have a narrow window to push back, and your written response shapes how the judge weighs reasonable apprehension under Ritchie v. Konrad (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 1275. A weak or late DV-250 can lock you into another restraining order for up to five years or even permanently, with firearms bans, CLETS entries, and immigration fallout that follow you across state lines.
According to the Judicial Council Court Statistics Report, California courts process more than 180,000 domestic violence filings each year, and a significant share involve renewal requests under section 6345.
Here is what you will learn in this guide:
- 📝 How to complete every line of DV-250, item by item, with sample answers
- ⚖️ How the Ritchie burden works and how to defeat a renewal request
- 📅 The strict deadlines for filing and serving your response
- 🔫 The firearms, CLETS, and immigration consequences of losing a renewal
- 🚫 The seven biggest mistakes respondents make and how to dodge them
What Form DV-250 Is and Why It Exists
Form DV-250 is the official Judicial Council document a restrained person uses to oppose a petitioner’s request to renew an existing domestic violence restraining order. The form gives you a structured way to admit or deny each request, ask for a different outcome, and submit your own evidence. You can download the current revision from the California Courts forms library.
The form exists because Family Code section 6345 lets a petitioner ask the court to extend a restraining order for five more years or permanently, without proving any new abuse. That is a powerful right for protected parties, but due process requires that the restrained person get notice and a real chance to respond. DV-250 is the procedural tool that delivers that chance.
The renewal process flows from the original DVRO under Family Code section 6300 and the conduct rules in Family Code section 6320. When the original order nears expiration, the petitioner files DV-200, the clerk issues a hearing notice on DV-250-INFO, and you respond on DV-250.
A common misconception is that DV-250 is just a “checkbox form” that does not need much thought. That is wrong. Judges read your written declaration carefully and weigh it against the petitioner’s subjective fear and objective reasonableness, the two prongs the California Court of Appeal set out in Ritchie.
The consequence of treating DV-250 as a formality is severe. If you leave items blank, fail to attach a supporting declaration, or skip the hearing, the court will likely grant the renewal by default. That default order then enters CLETS, the statewide law-enforcement database, and stays there for the full renewal term.
For a real-world example, picture Marcus in Los Angeles. Marcus received a three-year DVRO in 2023 after a heated argument with his ex-wife. In April 2026, she files DV-200 asking for a permanent renewal. Marcus has not contacted her in three years, but he ignores the papers. The judge grants a permanent renewal because nothing in the file rebuts her declaration. Marcus loses his concealed-carry permit and his nursing license review opens a new investigation.
Federal Backdrop Before California Rules
Federal law shapes what a California renewal means in practice. The federal firearms statute, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8), bars anyone subject to a qualifying restraining order from possessing firearms or ammunition. The Supreme Court recently upheld the statute in United States v. Rahimi (2024), so a renewed California DVRO triggers the federal ban for the entire renewal period.
The consequence is that even if you live in a state with weaker firearms laws, a California renewed DVRO blocks you nationwide. Federal prosecutors can charge a violation as a felony with up to fifteen years in prison under the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act amendments.
A common misconception is that storing your guns with a friend solves the problem. It does not. Constructive possession still counts, and California courts require proof of relinquishment on Form DV-800 within 24 hours of the order.
Deadlines, Service, and Filing Logistics
You generally must file DV-250 before the renewal hearing, and you must serve the petitioner at least a set number of days before the hearing depending on the local court’s rules under California Rules of Court rule 5.92. Many counties require service by mail at least two court days before the hearing, but you should confirm the local rule with your county’s self-help center.
The petitioner files DV-200 any time before the order expires. Under Family Code section 6345(a), the existing order automatically stays in force until the renewal hearing concludes, even if the original expiration date passes. That means you remain bound by every protection in the current order while you prepare DV-250.
Service of DV-250 must come from a non-party adult over 18, and the server completes Form DV-250-INFO or the standard Proof of Personal Service DV-200. You cannot serve the papers yourself.
The consequence of late or missing service is concrete. Judges routinely refuse to consider a DV-250 that was not served, and the petitioner’s evidence stands unrebutted. That can mean a five-year renewal even when your defense is strong.
A common misconception is that emailing a PDF to the petitioner counts as service. It does not, unless the petitioner has previously agreed in writing to electronic service under Code of Civil Procedure section 1010.6.
For example, Priya in Sacramento received DV-200 papers on April 1, 2026, with a hearing set for May 1. She finished DV-250 on April 28 and asked her cousin to drop it in the mail on April 29. The judge declined to consider her response because mailed service required five court days plus mailing time. Priya lost on a procedural defect, not on the merits.
Line-by-Line Walkthrough of DV-250
Below is a master table mapping every numbered item on the current revision of DV-250 to a plain-English instruction and a sample answer drawn from the official Judicial Council instructions. Read each entry and apply it to your own facts.
| DV-250 Item | Plain-English Instruction and Sample Answer |
|---|---|
| Caption (top of page) | Enter your name as the Restrained Person, the petitioner as the Protected Person, the court branch, and the case number from the original DVRO. Sample: “Restrained Person: Marcus T. Alvarez; Protected Person: Lara Alvarez; Case No. 23STRO12345; Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, Stanley Mosk Courthouse.” |
| Item 1 — Your information | Provide your full legal name, mailing address, phone, and email. If you fear disclosure, ask the clerk about the Safe at Home program. Sample: “Marcus T. Alvarez, 555 Hope Street, Los Angeles, CA 90014, (213) 555-0199.” |
| Item 2 — Lawyer information | List your attorney if represented, including State Bar number. If self-represented, check the box marked “I do not have a lawyer.” |
| Item 3 — Agree or disagree | Check (a) if you agree to the renewal in full, (b) if you disagree in full, or (c) if you agree to a modified renewal. Most contested cases pick (b). |
| Item 4 — Reasons you disagree | Write a short statement, then attach a longer declaration on Form MC-031. Sample: “I have had no contact with the protected person since the original order issued on June 1, 2023. I have completed a 52-week batterer’s intervention program. There is no objectively reasonable basis for continued apprehension.” |
| Item 5 — Changes you want | Identify modifications you propose, such as removing a stay-away from a shared workplace or shortening the term. Sample: “I request that any renewed order exclude the workplace stay-away because the protected person no longer works at our former employer.” |
| Item 6 — Firearms | Disclose whether you own or possess any firearms and your plan for relinquishment. Sample: “I do not own any firearms. I sold my one registered handgun on July 10, 2023, and filed Form DV-800 with this court.” |
| Item 7 — Other court cases | List any related family law, criminal, or civil cases. Sample: “Dissolution case 23STFL09876, finalized March 2024.” |
| Item 8 — Number of pages | Count every page including attachments and write the total. Sample: “Total pages including attachments: 14.” |
| Item 9 — Signature and date | Sign under penalty of perjury under California law and write the city where you signed. Sample: “Executed at Los Angeles, California, on April 20, 2026. /s/ Marcus T. Alvarez.” |
Item 3 in Depth: Agree, Disagree, or Modify
Item 3 is the strategic heart of DV-250 because it tells the judge your overall position before they read anything else. Checking (a) means you consent to the renewal exactly as the petitioner asks. Checking (b) means you are contesting the renewal in full and the court must hold an evidentiary hearing. Checking (c) opens a middle path where you propose a shorter term or narrower terms.
The consequence of checking the wrong box is that you may waive arguments. If you check (a) by mistake, the judge will treat your appearance as a stipulation and enter the renewal without hearing your evidence. If you check (b) but provide no declaration, the judge has nothing to weigh against the petitioner’s sworn statement.
A common misconception is that checking (c) is a “soft” admission of wrongdoing. It is not. Many seasoned family law practitioners, including authors at the California Lawyers Association, recommend (c) when the relationship has changed, because judges appreciate practical compromise.
Item 4 in Depth: Building Your Declaration
Item 4 is where you tell your story, and the Ritchie v. Konrad standard controls what matters. The petitioner must show a reasonable apprehension of future abuse, not just relive the original incident. Your declaration should rebut both the subjective fear prong and the objective reasonableness prong with specific facts.
Effective declarations include dates of completed counseling, proof of no contact, distance moves, new relationships that show stability, and evidence that the petitioner has not expressed fear in any other forum. Attach exhibits as lettered tabs, label them clearly, and reference them by exhibit letter in your declaration. The Bay Area Legal Aid self-help library publishes sample declarations you can adapt.
A common misconception is that you should attack the petitioner’s character. Judges dislike that tactic and often read it as further evidence of hostility. Stick to verifiable facts and your own conduct.
Three Common Scenarios on DV-250
The following tables illustrate the three most common situations respondents face when filling out DV-250. Each one shows a typical Respondent Choice on the form and the Likely Court Outcome under current California practice.
Scenario A: No Contact Since Original Order
| Respondent Choice | Likely Court Outcome |
|---|---|
| Check Item 3(b) disagreeing fully and attach a declaration documenting three years of no contact, completed therapy, and a new out-of-state residence | Court often denies renewal under Ritchie because objective reasonableness of continued fear is weak when the parties have had zero contact and the restrained person lives far away |
Scenario B: One Technical Violation in the Past Year
| Respondent Choice | Likely Court Outcome |
|---|---|
| Check Item 3(c) proposing a one-year renewal with narrower terms, acknowledge the violation, and show completion of an anger management program | Court frequently grants a short renewal of one to two years rather than five years or permanent, especially when the respondent shows insight |
Scenario C: Petitioner Alleges Ongoing Stalking
| Respondent Choice | Likely Court Outcome |
|---|---|
| Check Item 3(b) and submit phone records, GPS data, and witness declarations rebutting each alleged contact | Court schedules a contested evidentiary hearing under Cal. Rules of Court rule 5.119 and rules based on credibility |
Concrete Named Examples
Real names are changed, but these fact patterns mirror published California cases and self-help center intake records.
Daniel in San Diego received a three-year DVRO in 2023 after a confrontation outside his ex-girlfriend’s apartment. In 2026, she filed DV-200 alleging he drove past her new home twice. Daniel filed DV-250, checked Item 3(b), and attached GPS data from his employer’s fleet vehicle showing he was on a service route. The judge denied the renewal under Lister v. Bowen (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 319 because the alleged contacts were not credible.
Aisha in Oakland faced a renewal request supported by a single text message her ex-husband sent congratulating her on a promotion. Aisha checked Item 3(c), proposed dropping the order entirely in exchange for a mutual civil harassment stay-away under Code of Civil Procedure section 527.6. The court accepted the compromise.
Tomás in Fresno mailed DV-250 the day before the hearing and did not attach a declaration. The judge granted a permanent renewal because Tomás’s filing did not rebut his ex-wife’s sworn statement. Tomás now faces lifetime firearms restrictions and an immigration consequence under INA section 237(a)(2)(E).
Mistakes to Avoid
Avoid the following errors. Each one carries a specific negative outcome documented in California self-help center reports and appellate decisions.
- Filing DV-250 without serving the petitioner, which leads the court to disregard your response under California Rules of Court rule 5.92
- Leaving Item 4 blank, which gives the judge no factual basis to deny renewal under the Ritchie standard
- Attacking the petitioner’s character instead of presenting verifiable facts, which judges read as continued hostility
- Skipping the firearms disclosure in Item 6, which can lead to a contempt finding under Family Code section 6389
- Failing to sign under penalty of perjury, which makes your entire declaration inadmissible under Code of Civil Procedure section 2015.5
- Missing the hearing, which results in a default renewal that can run up to five years or permanent
- Mixing up DV-250 with DV-120 Response to Request for Domestic Violence Restraining Order, which is the wrong form and will be rejected by the clerk
Dos and Don’ts for DV-250
The following lists summarize practical guidance from county self-help centers and the California Lawyers Association Family Law Section.
Dos
- Do calendar the hearing date as soon as you receive DV-200, because deadlines run from that date
- Do collect documentary evidence early, since text logs, employer records, and counseling certificates take time to gather
- Do read DV-250-INFO cover to cover, because it explains every checkbox option
- Do ask the court self-help center for a free workshop, because they cover local procedural quirks
- Do consider hiring a limited-scope family law attorney, because even one consultation can sharpen your declaration
Don’ts
- Don’t contact the petitioner to discuss the renewal, because that contact can itself be a violation of the active order
- Don’t post about the case on social media, because screenshots become exhibits against you
- Don’t bring witnesses without filing witness declarations first, because surprise testimony can be excluded
- Don’t assume a remote hearing is informal, because California Rules of Court rule 3.672 treats it as a full court appearance
- Don’t ignore the firearms relinquishment requirement, because federal law under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8) applies independently of California rules
Pros and Cons of Filing DV-250
Filing DV-250 is almost always the right move when you face a renewal request, but it has trade-offs worth understanding.
Pros
- You preserve every defense available under Ritchie v. Konrad, which sets a high bar for petitioners
- You force the petitioner to prove reasonable apprehension, because silence equals admission in default settings
- You can propose a shorter or narrower renewal, which often appeals to busy family law judges
- You document your own good conduct, which helps in collateral proceedings like custody under Family Code section 3044
- You create a record for appellate review, which is impossible if you default
Cons
- You may incur attorney fees if the court finds the renewal warranted under Family Code section 6344
- You expose yourself to cross-examination at a contested hearing, which can be stressful
- You risk an expanded order if your declaration accidentally describes new conduct that violates the existing order
- You spend time gathering documents that the court may ultimately reject as cumulative
- You may trigger discovery requests from the petitioner’s counsel, which adds cost and delay
Key Entities You Will Encounter
Several institutions and people play central roles in a DV-250 case. Understanding their relationships keeps you from missing a step.
The Judicial Council of California drafts the form itself and publishes the official instructions. The Superior Court of California in your county hears the renewal motion. The California Department of Justice maintains CLETS, which is where any renewed order gets entered for law-enforcement access.
The petitioner is the protected person, and you are the restrained person. A process server delivers your DV-250 to the petitioner. The judge or commissioner assigned to the family law department issues the ruling. The California Bureau of Firearms enforces relinquishment.
Legal aid groups like Bay Area Legal Aid, Public Counsel, and Family Violence Appellate Project publish free toolkits and offer brief services that can help you prepare DV-250.
Recap of Key Rulings
California appellate courts have shaped DV-250 practice through several key opinions worth knowing.
Ritchie v. Konrad (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 1275 established the reasonable apprehension standard and made clear that a petitioner does not need to prove new abuse to win renewal, but must show that fear of future abuse is objectively reasonable. This case is cited in nearly every renewal hearing.
Lister v. Bowen (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 319 applied Ritchie and reversed a renewal where the petitioner’s fear was based largely on speculation. The court emphasized that judges must weigh the passage of time and the changed circumstances of both parties.
Cueto v. Dozier (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 550 confirmed that permanent renewals are appropriate only with strong evidence and that courts should consider whether the restrained person has accepted responsibility and changed behavior. Cueto often guides judges who are weighing Item 3(c) modification proposals.
FAQs
Is DV-250 the same as DV-120?
No. DV-120 responds to an initial request for a DVRO, while DV-250 responds to a renewal request. Filing the wrong form gets your response rejected by the clerk.
Do I have to file DV-250 to oppose a renewal?
No. You can appear at the hearing and oppose orally, but filing DV-250 is strongly recommended because it preserves your written record and gives the judge time to read your evidence.
Can I file DV-250 electronically?
Yes. Most California counties accept electronic filing through approved vendors listed on the court’s eFiling page, though local rules vary by court.
Will a renewed DVRO show up on background checks?
Yes. Renewed orders enter CLETS and appear on most law-enforcement and licensing background checks for the full renewal period.
Can I get attorney fees if I win?
Yes. Under Family Code section 6344, the prevailing party in a DVRO proceeding may recover reasonable attorney fees and costs.
Does a renewal automatically last five years?
No. The court may renew for five years, permanently, or any shorter period it finds appropriate based on the evidence and the Ritchie analysis.
Can I propose a mutual restraining order on DV-250?
No. California law disfavors mutual orders without separate findings under Family Code section 6305, so propose a civil harassment alternative instead.
Will the original order expire while my response is pending?
No. Under Family Code section 6345(a), the existing order continues automatically until the renewal hearing concludes.
Can I bring witnesses to the hearing?
Yes. You may bring witnesses, but you should file their declarations on Form MC-030 ahead of time and check local rules on live testimony.
Does losing a renewal affect my immigration status?
Yes. A renewed DVRO can trigger removal under INA section 237(a)(2)(E) and should be discussed with an immigration attorney before any plea or stipulation.
Can I appeal a renewal order?
Yes. You may appeal to the California Court of Appeal under Code of Civil Procedure section 904.1 within 60 days of notice of entry.
Do I have to give up my guns immediately?
Yes. Under Family Code section 6389, you must relinquish firearms within 24 hours and file Form DV-800 within 48 hours.
Related reading
- How to Fill Out California Form DV-110 (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 DV-150 (w/Examples) + FAQs
- How to Fill Out California Form DV-180 (w/Examples) + FAQs
- How to Fill Out California Form DV-300 (w/Examples) + FAQs
- How to Fill Out California Form DV-100 (w/Examples) + FAQs