The DVRO is what sets this case apart from a run-of-the mill divorce, so that's where we're starting the deep dive. First, a look at the standards and process for obtaining a DVRO and what the DVRO that Ioan Gruffudd obtained prevents Alice from doing. Ioan's evidence had to prove harassment by clear and convincing evidence, so what is harassment? We know that Alice didn't show up to the DVRO hearing or file any opposition to Ioan's petition despite having six months to do so and a lawyer representing her for most of that time period; but Ioan still had to meet the "clear and convincing" standard to get the order, it doesn't issue just by default. The order tells us specifically what Alice is prohibited from doing, so we know that whatever she allegedly did that resulted in two criminal charges of violating the DVRO being filed against her violated one or more of those restrictions. The criminal case is still pending and Alice is presumed innocent of those charges. But, by contrast, the DVRO allegations have been finally adjudicated, and this will have downstream consequences for her potential legal strategies. 00:00 Intro 00:48 A look at how the statutes empower the family court to restrain domestic violence 03:30 There is overlap with anti-harassment restraining order laws 04:43 CA CCP 527.6 lays out the process for getting a DVRO 06:01 The standard to get a DVRO is clear and convincing evidence - a pretty high burden 07:52 Let's look at the DVRO itself to see what the judge did 09:03 Some context - did Alice have a lawyer or not? 11:43 The details of Alice's restrictions - what exactly can she say and not say? 15:18 Now Alice is criminally charged with two counts of violating the DVRO 16:14 Alice is presumed innocent of the criminal charges, but the DVRO hearing has been finally decided 16:59 Up next: Ioan's allegations and evidence supporting the DVRO Watch part one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQDzWkuYcjw