I was going to say the same. The courts have already interpreted the issue of relationships and what it means. It doesn't even have to mean they have a relationship, just a reputation of a relationship or an expectation of one. I think to add something in this case might run counter to what we actually want to do. I think being too specific might be restrictive in the future and might cause problems for the court.
“Relationship” is good; the courts have interpreted it time and time again. I remember a case I had of a battered wife killing her husband. I defended her, and the court went through a litany of examples of what the expectation was and what “relationship” actually meant. I think it's already trite law. It's already there.