Protective Orders
Section summaryFamily Code Chapter 85 protective orders are the most common in stalking and family violence cases. Application by victim, hearing, final order with multi-year duration.
Protective order features:
- Family Code Chapter 85 procedures.
- Civil application and hearing.
- 2-year typical duration.
- Criminal violation under §25.07.
Civil Restraining Orders
Section summaryCivil restraining orders under TRCP 680 are typically issued in divorce, custody, and other civil litigation contexts. The restraining order applies during the civil case.
Civil restraining orders:
- Issued in civil litigation context.
- Typically tied to pending civil case.
- Civil contempt enforcement.
- Not criminal violation unless specific statute applies.
Emergency Protective Orders
Section summaryEmergency protective orders are issued by magistrates after family violence or stalking arrests. Duration is short (31-91 days) but effective immediately.
EPO features:
- Magistrate-issued after arrest.
- Effective immediately.
- Duration 31-91 days.
- Criminal violation under §25.07.
Criminal No-Contact Orders
Section summaryCriminal no-contact orders are issued as bond conditions or as part of probation. Violations affect the underlying criminal case.
Criminal no-contact:
- Bond condition or probation condition.
- Violation produces bond revocation or MTR.
- Less formal procedure than protective orders.
- Tied to the criminal case.
Enforcement Differences
Section summaryEach order type has different enforcement. Protective orders and EPOs criminally enforced under §25.07. Civil restraining orders enforced through contempt. Criminal no-contact enforced through underlying criminal case.
Enforcement summary:
- Protective orders/EPOs: criminal under §25.07.
- Civil restraining orders: civil contempt.
- Criminal no-contact: bond/probation revocation.
Need defense counsel?
L&L Law Group, PLLC handles Stalking and Revenge Porn Defense cases throughout DFW. Initial consultations are free.
Call (972) 370-5060 →Evidence Types in Stalking Cases
Restraining Orders and Stalking Overlap prosecutions rely heavily on electronic evidence: text messages, social-media posts and direct messages, email, location data, surveillance video, and phone records. The defense's foundation work in a stalking case overlapping with a civil restraining order is rigorous review and authentication of every piece of evidence the State intends to use.
Counsel should request preservation letters and discovery for the complete communication record — not just the messages the State has highlighted. Selective excerpts often misrepresent the full course of communication. Where the defendant and complainant exchanged hundreds of messages, the prosecutor's curated selection of 10 to 20 messages may strip away context that supports the defense.
Cell-site location data, third-party application records (Snapchat, Instagram, WhatsApp), and ISP records are all subject to preservation deadlines that run quickly. Counsel should serve preservation letters within days of taking the case, and should issue subpoenas where the defense is entitled to do so. Late-preserved evidence may be permanently lost.
Protective Order Overlap
Restraining Orders and Stalking Overlap matters often coincide with civil protective-order proceedings under Texas Family Code Chapter 85 or Code of Criminal Procedure Chapter 7B. The protective-order hearing typically occurs within weeks of the filing — long before any criminal case proceeds to trial. The defense's approach to the protective-order hearing affects the criminal case in important ways.
For a stalking case overlapping with a civil restraining order, statements made by the defendant at the protective-order hearing can be used in the criminal case. The protective-order hearing's evidentiary rules are more relaxed than the criminal trial's. The standard of proof is lower (preponderance vs. beyond reasonable doubt). The defendant may face the choice between testifying to defeat the protective order and preserving silence to protect the criminal defense.
Counsel should coordinate the protective-order defense with the criminal defense from the start. In some cases, agreeing to a limited protective order may be preferable to a contested hearing that creates a record harmful to the criminal case. In others, contesting the protective order vigorously may produce a no-finding outcome that supports the criminal defense at trial.
The three primary Texas protective order frameworks and their stalking applications
Texas has three primary protective order frameworks that intersect with stalking allegations. Family violence protective orders under Family Code Chapter 85 reach stalking conduct between family or household members or persons in a current or past dating relationship as defined in Family Code Section 71.0021. Stalking protective orders under Code of Criminal Procedure Article 7B.001 reach stalking conduct regardless of the relationship between the parties and provide a remedy specifically tailored to stalking circumstances. Sexual assault protective orders under Article 7B.001 reach stalking conduct that is part of a sexual assault. A single stalking course of conduct often qualifies for multiple frameworks, and counsel must analyze which framework provides the strongest protective remedy in the specific circumstances.
The family violence protective order has the broadest substantive reach but requires a qualifying relationship. The stalking protective order under Article 7B does not require a relationship but is technically more limited in some remedial respects. The Article 7B protective order is available where there is reasonable cause to believe the alleged offender has engaged in a stalking offense under Section 42.072 of the Penal Code regardless of whether the conduct produced a criminal conviction. The protective order can be sought concurrently with a pending criminal stalking prosecution, which gives the protected party an additional protective tool while the criminal case proceeds.
The defendant in a protective order proceeding must understand that the underlying conduct findings can later be used in the criminal proceeding. Article 7B.003 hearings produce sworn testimony and judicial findings that the criminal prosecutor can introduce in the parallel Section 42.072 case. Counsel should coordinate the protective order defense with the criminal defense to ensure that the protective order proceeding does not produce admissions or findings that compromise the criminal case.
The temporary ex parte order and the contested hearing
The Article 7B protective order process begins with an application that can include a request for a temporary ex parte order. The court can issue a temporary ex parte order upon finding that there is a clear and present danger of stalking, sexual assault, or sex trafficking. The temporary order can include prohibitions on contact, prohibitions on going within a specified distance of the protected party residence and workplace, prohibitions on possessing a firearm, and any other relief the court considers appropriate. The temporary order is effective for up to twenty days, which the court can extend.
The contested hearing must be held within fourteen days of the application unless the court extends. The applicant must prove the predicate stalking conduct by a preponderance of the evidence. The defendant is entitled to notice, an opportunity to be heard, the right to counsel, and the right to present evidence and cross-examine adverse witnesses. The hearing is in many respects similar to a small criminal trial without a jury, and counsel should approach the preparation accordingly.
The defense at the contested hearing typically focuses on the same issues that would arise in the criminal case under Section 42.072: whether the alleged conduct constitutes a course of conduct, whether the conduct was directed at the alleged victim or a member of the alleged victim family, whether the conduct would cause a reasonable person fear, whether the defendant intended the alleged effects, and whether the conduct is constitutionally protected. The protective order standard of preponderance is lower than the criminal beyond-reasonable-doubt standard, which gives the defense less margin for error.
Federal firearm consequences and the Rahimi framework
A protective order that includes findings of family violence triggers the federal firearm prohibition under 18 U.S.C. Section 922(g)(8). The Supreme Court in United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. 680 (2024), upheld Section 922(g)(8) against Second Amendment challenge in cases involving genuine findings of credible threat. The Rahimi framework requires that the protective order be entered after a hearing in which the defendant participated or had an opportunity to participate, that the order include explicit findings, and that the order include the firearm prohibition.
The Article 7B stalking protective order does not automatically include the federal firearm prohibition because Section 922(g)(8) reaches only orders involving intimate partner relationships. However, a stalking protective order that also includes findings of family violence under the broader family violence definition does trigger the federal prohibition. The defendant against whom a stalking protective order is entered should examine the order language carefully to determine whether it includes family violence findings and the firearm prohibition.
State-law firearm consequences also apply. Texas Penal Code Section 46.04(c) prohibits possession of firearms by persons subject to certain protective orders. The state and federal prohibitions can apply concurrently, and a defendant who possesses a firearm during the term of a qualifying protective order can face both state misdemeanor and federal felony exposure for a single act of possession. The defense should counsel the protected-party client carefully about the firearm consequences of the protective order in order to make informed decisions about whether to contest the order or accept its terms.
Modification and dissolution of stalking protective orders
Stalking protective orders can be modified or dissolved upon application by either party. The court considers whether the circumstances that justified the original order have changed and whether continued protection is necessary. A protected party may seek modification to extend the duration, expand the prohibited contact, or add additional persons to the protected scope. A defendant may seek modification to relax the prohibitions, narrow the prohibited contact, or terminate the order entirely if the underlying circumstances no longer warrant protection.
The standards for modification and dissolution are deferential to the original findings. A court that entered the original order on the basis of credible findings will generally not dissolve the order absent significant changed circumstances. The defendant seeking dissolution should present evidence of completed treatment, sustained good conduct, geographic separation from the protected party, or other circumstances that support a finding that the original concerns no longer justify continued protection. The protected-party defense to a modification or dissolution petition focuses on the ongoing risk and any continuing harassment that has occurred since the original order.
Counsel should evaluate whether to address protective order issues through modification or through the natural expiration of the order. Article 7B protective orders have specific duration limits, with the court able to set a duration that the court considers appropriate. A defendant facing a protective order with a defined expiration date may be better served by complying with the order through the expiration than by litigating early dissolution and creating a record of contested compliance. The strategic calculus depends on the specific facts and the client priorities.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can multiple orders apply to the same situation?
Does an EPO automatically lead to a full protective order?
What if I have both criminal and civil restrictions?
Can I contest a protective order while also fighting criminal charges?
Read the full Texas Stalking Defense Guide
This article is one section of our comprehensive Texas Stalking Defense Guide. The pillar guide covers recent developments, official resources, and the complete framework with deeper analysis.
Read the Pillar Guide →Practical Checklist
- Document everything early. Communications, records, and witness contact information lose value as time passes. Preserve them at the start of the case.
- Identify all parallel proceedings. Criminal, administrative, civil, and regulatory tracks often run in parallel. A statement in one becomes evidence in another. Map the full picture before any disclosure.
- Calendar every deadline. Filing deadlines, response deadlines, discovery deadlines, and hearing dates all have consequences. Missing a deadline can foreclose defenses that the facts otherwise support.
- Build the mitigation package early. Witness letters, treatment records, employment verification, and character references take time to gather. Counsel should begin building the package at the first consultation, not as the hearing approaches.
- Coordinate counsel across forums. Where the matter implicates multiple proceedings, having coordinated counsel (whether one firm or multiple firms in close communication) avoids the strategic errors that inconsistent representation creates.
- Understand the public-record dimension. Many dispositions create searchable records that follow the licensee, defendant, or respondent for years. The decision to contest versus resolve must account for the public visibility of each path.
For a confidential evaluation of your matter, call L&L Law Group at (972) 370-5060 or email info@landllawgroup.com. Initial consultations are free.
Next Steps
If you are facing a situation described here, consult counsel promptly. Many issues in this area run on strict deadlines.
- Call (972) 370-5060
- Email info@landllawgroup.com
Cite this guide
Bluebook: Reggie London & Njeri London, Restraining Orders and Stalking Case Overlap, L&L Law Group (May 30, 2026), https://landllawgroup.com/insights/restraining-orders-stalking-overlap/.
APA: London, R., & London, N. (2026, May 30). Restraining Orders and Stalking Case Overlap. L&L Law Group.