Top domestic violence Lawyers in Alameda | 2 available

2 domestic violence lawyers are available in Alameda, california, including Georgia M. Petrie and Susan L. Jeffries. These lawyers are rated between 3.4/5 to 3.8/5 and 64% provide free consultation.

Susan L. Jeffr

Georgia M. Pet

domestic violence Lawyers Nearby Alameda (by distance)

Within 25 miles near you

San Mateo, California ZIP 94403 16.4 mi away 2 lawyers

View Profile

Avvo Rating:

Susan L. Jeffries

Firm: Law Offices of Susan L. Jeffries

2121 Central Avenue , Alameda , California 94501

Practice Areas: Child Custody & Visitation,Child Support,Divorce,Domestic Violence,Family ,Prenuptial Agreement,Tax Planning,Taxation - State & Federal

Avvo Review

“Susan Jeffries was recommended to me by a friend who is also an attorney. He said she taught classes on divorce law. She actually new the law much bet...”

Read on Avvo

View Profile

Avvo Rating:

Georgia M. Petrie

Firm: Law Office of Georgia M. Petrie

Marina Gate 5 , Alameda , California 94501

Practice Areas: Child Custody & Visitation,Divorce,Domestic Violence,Family ,Guardianship and Conservatorship,Spousal Support

Avvo Review

“Georgia was amazing. She was my attorney for a protection order and she was early to the court she knew my case better than I did. She fought for me a...Tricia WolffGeorgias the be…”

Read on Avvo

Describe Your Case — We'll Connect You With a Matching Lawyer

Save This Search

Recent Q&As in California (domestic violence)

Restraining order advice | Aug 10, 2026 | Sourced from Reddit
Location: California restraining order — protected person and I continued communicating. What happens now? I’m in California and I was recently served with a restraining order filed by someone I had a conflict with. Another person (someone I had a very close personal relationship/friendship with) is listed as an additional protected person on the order. The order says I’m not supposed to contact the protected people. However, after the order was issued/served, the additional protected person and I continued communicating by text for several days. He knew about the restraining order, and the conversations were going back and forth between both of us rather than being completely one-sided. Recently, he stopped responding, but I continued trying to contact him, including multiple texts/calls. I’m now worried that he could report the contact and that I could be arrested or charged with violating the order. I understand that even if a protected person voluntarily responds or initiates contact, that may not legally give me permission to contact them if the court order prohibits it. I have stopped contacting him and am not looking for advice on how to get around the order. My questions are: In California, what normally happens if an additional protected person reports that someone violated a restraining order through calls/texts? Does the fact that he knowingly and voluntarily communicated with me for several days matter legally at all, even if it doesn’t excuse my contact? Would police typically investigate/contact me first, or can someone be arrested based on…
Law enforcement won’t enforce restraining order | Aug 6, 2026 | Sourced from Reddit
I have a domestic violence restraining order and it has been broken on multiple occasions including destruction of property, defaming me on social media, contacting third parties to reach me, and falsifying police reports on me. Police said “it’s too big of a liability to arrest him”, and we cohabitated (never married, state doesn’t recognize common law) the property was communal. What can I do here? Location: California
Domestic violence restraining order hearing in California | Aug 2, 2026 | Sourced from Reddit
Location: California I filled for DVRO against my ex who is located in California for sending harassing mail to my employer. Which included intimate pictures of myself and threats to further distribute more pictures of me online and on social media if I was not terminated from my position. I lost my employment as a direct result of this. I reported the matter to the Police here in the UK, and they are in the process of making a referral to relevant US authorities since the offence falls under US jurisdiction. Despite making reports, I have continued to receive harassing mail from my ex and his associates. Most recently on 16 July, where my ex admitted to sharing my intimate pictures with his friends as retaliation for me ending our relationship. said I “deserved everything I got” and if my pictures end up online, everyone who fooled me including future employers will see them and these are the consequences for me not accepting his calls and breaking up with him. (Sick I know) I was granted a temporary restraining order and a hearing was scheduled for 28 July, however he did not show up. Despite being served, the judge said there was an issue with proof of service. As the deputy who served him did not list all the required documents. So the hearing was continued to 25 August. I don’t have money to afford an attorney so I have to represent myself. I am not to best public speaker…
CA- convicted for PC 273.6(a) (disobeying a court order)DVRO | Jul 29, 2026 | Sourced from Reddit
Location: California I'm trying to understand whether I'm prohibited from possessing firearms under federal law. Here's my background: In 2019, I pleaded guilty to: PC 273.6(a) (disobeying a domestic violence restraining order) – misdemeanor. conviction was dismissed under PC 1203.4 I have never been convicted of PC 243(e)(1), PC 273.5, or any assault or battery offense. My plea was to violating the court order (PC 273.6(a)). I did not plead guilty to any offense involving physical force. My California DOJ criminal history still reflects the conviction and later dismissal. I submitted a California Firearms Eligibility Check, and DOJ determined that I am prohibited under California law, but I'm trying to understand the legal basis for that determination. My questions are: Does a conviction for PC 273.6(a) by itself create a California firearm prohibition after probation has been completed and the conviction has been dismissed under PC 1203.4? Does a conviction for PC 273.6(a) qualify as a federal misdemeanor crime of domestic violence under the Lautenberg Amendment, even though I was not convicted of domestic battery or corporal injury? I'm looking for legal insight into the statutes involved rather than opinions. I understand this isn't legal advice, but I'd appreciate any guidance or relevant case law.
At a domestic violence restraining order hearing, who asks the witness questions? | Jul 25, 2026 | Sourced from Reddit
Location: California USA. Hello, I have two questions actually, but I’ll make another post for that other question. I am the Protected Party with a domestic violence temporary restraining order. I am pro se. I have a witness. The Restrained Party seems to be evading service. The hearing is scheduled for 7/30/2026. I do know that if the Restrained Party has not been served that the TRO is not technically in effect yet, so right now it’s only been approved by the judge. (1) Regarding the witness: should I be prepared to ask them questions? Am I going to be questioning the witness like how they do in Law & Order (I apologize if that is an offensive reference)? I was initially thinking that the witness would make a statement and the judge will question them, but is it more likely that I should be prepared to ask questions, and the witness should be ready to answer questions from me, the judge and the Restrained Party? With the Restrained Party not being served yet, should my witness come to the 7/30/2026 hearing?

See more Q&A Ask a Lawyer (free)

California Statutes — Domestic Violence

Prevention of Domestic Violence, part of the Family Code

Browse the full California Family Code →

Official government statute text, reproduced for reference — not legal advice. For your situation, consult a licensed attorney.

You have reached the Last Page!

Disclaimer: This content is based on aggregated public information and estimated market trends. It is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.