What is the current state of the law regarding restraining orders?

words, he was free to ignore what she said until she obtained a court order. That is not the law. (Sabato v. Brooks (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 715, 725 ["defendant acknowledged that he continued to contact plaintiff until he . . . 'got a call from an El Dorado sheriff.' This was one week prior to the date on which plaintiff requested a restraining order. . . . [Before that, he] frequently contact[ed] plaintiff by mail, e-mail, text message, telephone, and other means after plaintiff told him not to contact her, although he characterized his messages as 'non-threatening.' Even [without threats or violence,] these unilateral, unwanted and harassing contacts supported the issuance of the domestic violence restraining order"].)

Blain also attacks the sufficiency of the evidence to support the trial court's exercise of discretion by citing trial testimony the judge did not rely on, e.g., that the parties had broken up and reconciled in the past, and highlighting minor inconsistencies in Christian's testimony. But the law is well settled that appellate courts presume the evidence is sufficient to support the trial court's judgment and do not reweigh evidentiary conflicts. (See, e.g., Pannu v. Land Rover North America, Inc. (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 1298, 1322, fn. 18.)