--- title: "Who Counts as a \"Cohabitant\" Under California Law?" description: "California law uses two different definitions of \"cohabitant\" depending on whether you're looking at a domestic violence charge or a restraining order, and they don't overlap. Here's how each one works and why the distinction matters." url: "https://www.thehfirm.com/blog/who-counts-as-a-cohabitant-under-california-law" site: "H Law Group" published: "2026-07-15T00:00:00Z" --- # Who Counts as a "Cohabitant" Under California Law? California law uses two different definitions of "cohabitant" depending on whether you're looking at a domestic violence charge or a restraining order, and they don't overlap. Here's how each one works and why the distinction matters. Category: Domestic Violence Author: Nima Haddadi -- One of top-rated California DUI and criminal defense lawyer "Cohabitant" sounds like a simple word, roughly meaning someone you live with, but California law actually uses two different definitions depending on which statute is in play, and they don't overlap perfectly. The criminal definition used to charge someone with domestic violence requires something more than just sharing an address. The family law definition used for a restraining order is broader and doesn't require the same thing at all. Which one applies can change whether someone qualifies for protection, or whether a charge holds up in the first place. This guide covers both definitions, the case law that shaped the criminal one, why the distinction actually matters, and what doesn't count as cohabitation either way. ## The criminal law definition For domestic violence charges, [Penal Code 13700(b)](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PEN§ionNum=13700) defines a cohabitant as two unrelated adults living together for a substantial period of time, resulting in some permanency of the relationship. The statute lists six non-exhaustive factors courts weigh: whether the parties had sexual relations while sharing living quarters, whether they shared income or expenses, whether they jointly used or owned property, whether they held themselves out as spouses, how continuous the relationship was, and how long it lasted. The California Court of Appeal fleshed this out further in People v. Holifield (1988), holding that a cohabitant relationship "requires something more than a platonic, rooming-house arrangement" and involves living together in a substantial relationship marked, at minimum, by permanence and sexual or amorous intimacy. Notably, the court made clear that holding yourselves out as husband and wife isn't required to meet the definition. In the actual Holifield case, the couple didn't share income or expenses and didn't present themselves as spouses, but the jury still found cohabitation based on the permanence of the relationship and the intimacy involved. The test is holistic, not a checklist where every factor has to be satisfied. ## Why the definition matters in a domestic violence charge [Penal Code 273.5 criminalizes causing a physical injury resulting in a traumatic condition to a spouse or former spouse](/penal-codes/pc-273-5-corporal-injury-to-spouse-or-c), a cohabitant or former cohabitant, a fiancĂ© or someone in a current or past dating relationship, or the other parent of the defendant's child. It's a wobbler: up to a year in county jail as a misdemeanor, or 2, 3, or 4 years in state prison as a felony, plus a fine of up to $6,000. A conviction can also come with a protective order that the court has discretion to set for up to 15 years. Whether someone qualifies as a cohabitant under this statute is often the difference between a domestic violence charge under Penal Code 273.5 and a more general assault or battery charge that doesn't carry the same domestic violence classification, related sentencing consequences, or protective order authority. ## A different, broader definition for restraining orders [Family Code 6209](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=FAM§ionNum=6209) defines "cohabitant" for purposes of a [domestic violence restraining order](/blog/temporary-restraining-orders-and-how-to-get-one-in-california), and it reads very differently: a cohabitant is simply a person who regularly resides in the household, and a former cohabitant is someone who formerly did. Unlike the criminal definition and the Holifield standard, this definition doesn't require sexual or romantic intimacy at all. That gap matters: a platonic roommate could potentially qualify as a cohabitant for purposes of seeking a domestic violence restraining order under the Family Code, even in a situation that wouldn't meet the criminal cohabitant standard needed to charge someone under Penal Code 273.5. ## What doesn't count as cohabitation Family members, friends, and roommates in a purely platonic living arrangement generally don't meet the criminal cohabitant definition, since Holifield requires some degree of permanence combined with sexual or amorous intimacy, not just a shared lease. Those relationships may still carry other legal protections, including a civil harassment restraining order or protection under different criminal statutes, but they don't automatically bring the specific domestic violence classification and penalties tied to Penal Code 273.5. ## Criminal cohabitant vs. family law cohabitant: quick comparison - What's required: the criminal definition under Penal Code 13700(b) and Holifield requires permanence plus sexual or amorous intimacy; the family law definition under Family Code 6209 only requires regularly residing in the household. - Where it applies: the criminal definition matters for charging someone under Penal Code 273.5; the family law definition matters for who can seek a domestic violence restraining order. - Does a platonic roommate qualify: generally no under the criminal definition; potentially yes under the broader family law definition. - Does holding yourselves out as spouses matter: not required under either definition, though it's one of the six factors courts consider under the criminal standard. ## Frequently asked questions ### Does a cohabitant have to be a romantic partner in California? Under the criminal definition used in domestic violence charges, yes, some degree of sexual or amorous intimacy combined with permanence is required, per Penal Code 13700(b) and the Holifield case. Under the broader family law definition used for restraining orders, no romantic relationship is required at all. ### Can a roommate be charged with domestic violence against another roommate? Only if the relationship meets the criminal cohabitant standard, meaning it involves permanence and sexual or amorous intimacy, not just a shared lease. A purely platonic roommate situation generally wouldn't support a domestic violence charge under Penal Code 273.5, though other charges could still apply. ### Do you have to hold yourselves out as married to be considered cohabitants? No. Courts have specifically held that presenting yourselves as spouses is not required to meet the cohabitant definition; it's only one of several factors considered. ### How long can a protective order last after a domestic violence conviction involving a cohabitant? A court has discretion to issue a protective order for up to 15 years following a conviction under Penal Code 273.5. ### Can a platonic roommate get a restraining order against the person they live with? Potentially, yes. Family Code 6209 defines a cohabitant for restraining order purposes simply as someone who regularly resides in the household, without requiring the romantic or sexual element that the criminal definition requires. ## About Nima Haddadi Nima Haddadi is a leading California DUI and criminal defense attorney with deep expertise in handling complex cases. Known for strategic defense and courtroom strength, he is a trusted choice for clients facing DUI, felony, and misdemeanor charges. --- ## Contact H Law Group - Phone: (888) 499-4948 (phones answered 24/7) - Email: info@thehlawgroup.com - Free consultation: https://www.thehfirm.com/free-consultation - Contact form: https://www.thehfirm.com/contact-us ### Offices - Los Angeles Branch: 714 W Olympic Blvd Ste, 803, Los Angeles, CA 90015 -- (213) 985-4431 - San Diego Branch: 600 W Broadway, Suite 700, San Diego, CA 92101 -- (619) 716-0968 - San Jose Branch: 333 W San Carlos St, San Jose, CA 95110 -- (408) 869-6572 - Orange County Branch: 2030 Main St, # 1300, Irvine, CA 92614 -- (949) 832-8057 - Riverside County Office: 41593 Winchester Rd, Suite 200, Temecula, CA 92590 -- (951) 418-3576 - Santa Barbara Branch: 1117 State St, Santa Barbara, CA 93101 -- (888) 499-4948 ### Disclaimer This website provides general legal information only and does not create an attorney-client relationship. For legal advice about your specific situation, contact H Law Group directly.