The purpose of this investigation is to explore whether and how remaining order forms used to deter domestic violence are understood by ordinary readers. Specifically, the investigation includes a linguistic analysis and empirical study of readers' undemanding of prohibitions on 'contact' between parties as expressed in recent and current Colorado temporary restraining order forms. Evidence from a scenario comprehension rest and from think-aloud protocols suggests that readers have difficulties in making correct inferences about the scope of the term 'contact.' The evidence suggests that greater explicitness in the standard language of the forms may improve the chances of correct interpretation and thus may help to reduce unwanted contact between disputing parties. While courts have decided that a certain measure of generality in form language must be tolerated, they often draw such a conclusion based solely upon judicial intuition about ordinary readers' comprehension. However, we are concerned that such unaided intuition may poorly anticipate the difficulties of ordinary readers left to wrestle with the generality of legal terms on their own.