Can You Appeal A Restraining Order?

Great Debates
41

The federal statute jtgain cited is violated by possession alone. U.S. v. Emerson, 270 F.3d 203 (5th Cir. 2001). The statute was deemed to be constitutional in the same case.

That’s not an appeal. Appeals are heard by a new (almost invariably higher) court. You are talking about something which is, in effect, a rehearing.

There are two kinds of things that are typically referred to as restraining orders. One is a temporary restraining order, which are granted on an emergency basis and often without notice, pending a full hearing.

The gentleman discussed in the OP has progressed beyond that point; his SO has obtained a permanent injunction, which does require a full hearing.

Domestic injunctions are final orders, and can be appealed like any other final order. Temporary restraining orders are non-final, but can be “appealed” via a writ of mandamus. However, since they are typically granted on a short term basis, it’s likely that the temporary order will have been dissolved (or replaced with a permanent injunction) by the time the appeals court gets around to issuing the writ.

ETA: the standard for appeal of such an injunction would be abuse of discretion, which is a very high bar to meet.

42

Joel you are right on target there. I think the main problem with RO’s is that they only will stop law abiding citizens that for the most part intend to do no harm anyways.
However, for the sake of argument say a boyfriend or husband want to kill his wife. He has planned and pre-meditated this murder and is intent on doing it. Does anyone really think the threat of violating an RO is going to mean anything at all to someone who is determined to commit murder in the first? He faces either a life sentence or the death penalty. What are they going to do to him? Tack on a few extra years for vioiation of the RO?
I think you hit on a great point that an RO could possibly send someone over the edge. But the biggest problem I see is that it gives women the illusion of being safe. The RO isn’t a bodygaurd, but for some reason women who have them in place think it protects them. My thought is (unpractical I know) if the courts are so concerned for the safety of the person taking out the RO then assign 24 hour police protection to them. If it is that serious, then we can’t be too careful can we.

I will stick by my previous statements that many many RO’s are taken out by vengful soon to be ex’s as a stategy move in a divorce. If you need one, get one and buy a gun at the same time to protect yourself, because that piece of paper isn’t going to do it, however if you don’t need one grow up and don’t try to destroy a guys life because you can.

43

I can only speak for my state, which is Texas, but: the applicant and respondent need more of a relationship than that. Protective orders (which is what we call them here; a “restraining order” normally is something you’d get to keep another person from damaging or destroying your property) require a relationship between the applicant and respondent. That means family by blood or marriage, living in the same household, parents of the same child, or dating. Just a couple of months ago, the legislature passed a “new boyfriend” provision that allows a person to apply for a protective order if they’re being threatened/harassed/attacked by the ex-spouse or ex-boyfriend of the person they’re currently dating. If that family-type relationship isn’t there, though, the court can’t issue a protective order, with one exception: there are special provisions that allow victims of sexual assault to get POs against their attackers regardless of the relationship.

Also, to issue the order, the court has to make a specific finding that “family violence has occurred and is likely to occur in the future if a protective order is not issued.” The definition of “family violence” does include threats and harassment, so it’s not limited to physical violence, but still, if you’re just worried that he might do something, but there’s no history of him actually doing anything, the court can’t issue the order.

Not entirely true. It’d be impossible for divorced couples to exchange the kids for visitation if they couldn’t contact each other and coordinate, so the courts try to be sensible about such things. If it’s necessary, there’s the option of not allowing communication with the protected person at all except through her attorney, but if they still want to communicate, the provision is changed to “shall not communicate with Person X in a threatening or harassing manner.” In truth, that just means that if they make a threat or start harassing the protected person, they’ll have two charges against them instead of just one.

44

I don’t agree with this.

You’re hypothesizing a case in which a guy is planning and premeditating killing his wife. But what about unplanned and unpremeditated violence? Let’s say the guy isn’t planning anything, but has a very bad temper and a predilection for violence when angry and/or drunk. By separating him from his wife the RO prevents the type of situation that is likely to provoke violence from arising.

In addition, a lot of guys who are out to kill their wives intend to get away with it. Anyone with a RO on him knows that there is no doubt that he’ll be the first suspect. So it might work even in such cases.

So I think most likely they are effective, to some extent.

But I also think there are a lot of other things that would be effective too. Suppose we lock up anyone who is accused of any sort of crime. That would be effective, but we don’t do it because locking people up is a severe measure in its own right, and we don’t inflict harm on some people just because it’s likely to be effective in reducing the harm to others.

So too, I think the effectiveness of ROs needs to be balanced against the very real harm that they do to the subjects of these orders.

45

Doesn’t seem to be universally true.

It’s well known that a woman got a TRO against Dave Letterman based on her assertion that he was harassing her via subliminal messages on his show. (The judge said his policy was to issue TROs to anyone who filled out the form correctly, but at any rate, DL obviously had no relationship with this woman.)

46

Okay, I don’t disagree with your post, but I have to stand on the point that an RO isn’t going to protect anyone. If someone is willing to hurt you, then the penalty of violating an RO is meaningless to the, because the act they are going to commit is so much more severe than the violation of the RO.
I truly believe that if a woman (or man if that is the case) is scared enough to think that their life is in danger they should take every appropriate step to protect themselves. That might include an RO, but I believe a firearm would be a more effective way to keep yourself safe. A firearm has been proven 100% more effective than waving a court document at your assaliant.
Understand that I am not trying to be combative. I just think the whole RO thing is a farce that penalizes those that are falsely accused and offers zero protection to those who need it. It is nothing more than a feel good measure.
You are correct that it would be very effective to lock people up that are just accused and not proven guilty. I will agree to your offer if you agree that if the accused is innocent and the accusation are false, that the person who made those accusation serves a jail term equal to that which the accused would have faced if the allegations are true.

47

Here’s a case I’m living right now. BF has an ex who cheated on him, insisted on a divorce, and is now sort of trying to get him back. They have a kid so he works hard to remain on cordial terms. She has random attacks of violence, though, destroying expensive electronics, trying to barge into his house when she thinks he’s entertaining a girlfriend (which he wasn’t), shoving him around, screaming, etc. She just goes batshit sometimes. Has she bruised him? Yes. Is he afraid she’s going to seriously injure or kill him? No. She’s stalking him a little. He’s worried about ME, he’s just tired of the drama and never knowing when she’s going to go off and destroy something or whatever. An RO would get her attention, and at least keep her away from the house and stop her following him. And, if she starts bothering me, ditto for me.

And as a side note – yeah, there are plenty of vindictive women who would take out an RO just to fuck with her ex. But, I think a judge erring on the side of caution and taking, “I’m just scared of him,” as a reason, or at least allowing simple harassment over physical violence to be a reason, is OK. Men don’t understand how sometimes a woman can be genuinely afraid of men or a man. We have to be constantly on guard, because you do never know when that nice guy will turn into something not so nice. Listening to your instincts may damn a few innocent men, but better that than ignoring them and being sorry.

48

America at it’s best. Better that ten innocent men get punished than a single guilty one walk free.
Er..wait.

49

I don’t have it in front of me, but the law in West Virginia tries to do this, but it is written so broadly that a college roommate from 30 years ago, or a woman you had a one night stand with at a bar in the Dominican Republic in 1984 are considered “family members” for the purposes of domestic violence laws.

50

Apparently, in California, there is a Civil Harassment Restraining Order, which can be used on almost anybody.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Harassment_Restraining_Order#cite_note-7

Actually the article had some good links on restraining orders in general and whether they are effective in preventing violence.

51

Well, I certianly respect you right to have an opinion, but have you thought of the consequences of a false RO has on a person? When my ex got one on me there was NO violence of any kind. It was put in place for two reasons:

1: To get me out of the house so she could move her boyfriend in

2: To give her exclusive access to our bank accounts, saving accounts, retierment funds etc. Which she cleaned out, leaving me absolutely no recourse as we weren’t divorced yet so because they were in a joint account she could legally do so.

3: To better position herself in the upcoming divorce. Looks good in court when you can claim your divorce is because your soon to be ex is a danger to you.

Because of her false RO everytime I apply for a job I have to explain to a new potential employer that I did nothing wrong and hope that he believes me. I have to sweat it out everytime there is a background check done when I want to volunteer at my children’s school or be a leader in my Boy Scout troop. She lied as a stratigic move during a divorce. Where are the penalties for her? Is it okay that my reputation is trashed?

I feel for your situation and if his Nut Job is attacking him and leaving bruises, destroying property as you say then the correct form of action is not an RO, but charges for battery, criminal trespass and destruction of private property. The situation you have described shows a legitimate reason for an RO, the problem I have is not using an RO for a legitimate reason. It is the use of one for the intent of causing problems for someone, just because you can.

I am well aware that a woman can be scared of a man. If you think in anyway that I am condoning violence against women you are way off the mark. The piont I made is the if you are in true physical danger and you think that a RO will protect you, you live an in fantasy world and that mistaken sense of protection might end up getting you killed. If someone is intent on hurting you a piece of paper telling them to stay 100 yards from you isn’t going to do anything. Women, for your own protection, use your heads. An RO might not be a bad idea, but don’t let your defense down and think that just because you have one you are now behind some shield and the person you are afraid of can’t hurt you.

To sum up, I have no problem with anyone in actuall danger getting an RO provided they realize that it by itself will not protect them from danger. It will help document the problem, but certianly won’t solve it. I do have a big probem with RO’s being used to posturize during a divorce, used as a tool of domestic terror to inflict hardship on an innocent person. Used just because they can be.

52

An RO isn’t a punishment. It’s not a conviction of a crime, it’s not even an accusation of a crime. It is a directive that Person X leave Person Y the hell alone.

I guess you would say that "better one person is killed or prevented from living their lives in peace than have ten innocent people incorrectly kept at bay.

Did you miss the first part of the paragraph that you pulled a quote from? Yes, there are people who use an RO incorrectly, and perhaps judges who pass them out too freely. But again, when something is he said / she said (or whatever genders are in play), would you rather a judge deny an RO when there was really a need? I’m sorry your ex played this on you and you have worked up quite a head of indignation and anger about this. Yeah, OK, your case is a case of an incorrect ruling. People are shits and judges are fallible. Does that mean that (a) men in general are this huge persecuted class that should never ever have an RO unless they’ve caused bleeding and broken bones, or that (b) the whole idea of an RO should be trashed? No.

53

I apologize for not addressing this part of your post in my reply. Let me start by saying with all due respect that you sound like a self absorbed spoiled princess with that comment. I think that your opinion would change dramatically if you happen to find yourself as one of the few innocents.
Also, how about that wonderful girl you know turns into a complete and total vindictive nut job? Or does it only work when men are the bad ones? Do you really believe in what you are saying here?
I suppose in your opinion that it is okay to apply the law so haphazardly that if 20 or 30 men languish in prison for 1/2 their lives on false charges that it is justified as long as number 31 is really guilty. Or how about anyone who is ever charged with murder we just skip the trial and execute them. There might be a pile of innocent bodies lying all over the place, but in your world that is okay because surly one or two of them must be guilty.
I would love to continue this reply, but I get the feeling that no amount of logic will change your opinion. You have a victim mentallity because of your gender and because of people like you innocent people have to pay a price. But since that price isn’t being paid by you, I guess it is okay then.

54

oh, and …

Why not try an RO first? Again, it’s not a sentence, a conviction, an arrest, an indictment, an accusation. It’s a warning and a line in the sand. It may cause her problems but less than swearing out a warrant on her. It’s about levels of appropriateness.

…

And again, not all ROs are about imminent serious physical danger. Y’all are arguing worst-case extremes of the maniac murder-suicide planner. Not everyone who deserves an RO will ignore it. If it works with those less-than-worse-case scenarios, then it’s worthwhile.

55

As was mentioned upthread, it does contain a punishment: A man is not allowed to possess firearms or ammunition when he is subject to a restraining order. Anecdote alert: Deer hunting is popular here. I’ve heard from a local magistrate that RO applications increase three-fold the weekend before deer season. GF gets mad at BF, she’ll show him. No deer hunting this year!

No punishment? What about the man who applies for his dream job, but the HR department sees an active or former RO on his record. Do you think they look at that and say that is was “no conviction, no accusation, just a directive”? Of course not. They will pass him over.

And it is certainly SUPPOSED to be an accusation of a crime. You are going into court and testifying that he has placed you in REASONABLE fear of bodily injury. That’s the legal standard. If a woman goes into court and does not believe this, she is committing perjury. Not, he pissed you off. Not he’s banging another chick. Reasonable fear of injury. Would you support prosecution for women who abuse the system? I checked with the prosecutor; the number of perjury INVESTIGATIONS in RO cases last year: 0. Since the law was enacted? 0.

It’s turned into a “fuck you” card for a scorned woman to play. It by no means leaves a man unscathed. If he has children, he can’t call to talk about parenting concerns. He can’t drop off his kids to their mother without a third party being present. How do you think his kids feel about him after that?

For any of this to happen, a man certain should have the basic rights that any other civil defendant has in society: proof beyond a preponderance of the evidence.

56

Well Claire, you never cease to amaze. Let’s take your logic to the next step. I guess you would say better people put to death than to have one guilty person go free.
Doesn’t sound so perfect now does it. I can’t believe that you can actually sit here and try to convice us that because there is a guilty person out there that it doesn’t matter how many innocent lives are damged or ruined. Like I said in my
post I am positive that if you were one of the innocents who had her life inconvienenced you would have a problem with it. And yes, I said inconvienenced not ruined because something tells me that the smallest slight against you would send you over the top.

I didn’t miss anything, I just have a problem that you think it is okay that any woman should be able to file a RO for any reason, wether it is legitimate or not. A RO can cause huge problems for a person that doesn’t deserve one. And for you to say that it is okay because someone else might have a problem is insane. Innocent people have had their lives disrupted and face years of problems because there is a mindset in this country that men are bad, women are good.

Please show me where in any of my post that I have advocated and justified “bleeding and broken bones”. And show me where I have said that we should “trash” the whole idea of using RO’s. You can’t because I have specifically said that there are legitimate uses for RO’s. Once again the point I was making that a blanket statement of “I am scared of him” should not be grounds to get an RO. It leaves too many avenues for abuse. PROVE why an RO should be granted. When my ex got in court and admitted I have NEVER done a single thing to threathen or hurt her but still got an RO is a travesty of my Civil Rights. Civil Rights do mean something to you, don’t they? She admitted that I didn’t do one thing to her in any way shape or form but was able to get an RO because she was able to mouth the words “I am scared of him”. You are damn right I am angry about this and I am sure you would be too if you were on the recieving end.
Also, I have also advocated that any woman that finds herself in a situation where she thinks her physical well being is in danger to take proactive steps to protect herself and not rely on the warm and fuzzy feeling of a piece of paper. Please tell me how that makes me against women and that makes me a supporter of men abusing women? If a man abuses a woman then he needs to go to jail and pay the price. If it can be shown that a man has made a threat or has physically threatened a woman then there should be a system in place to deal with the problem. But to lower the bar so far that a simple statement with zero proof is enough to mark a man for the rest of his life is taking it way to far. And please don’t tell me that a RO is nothing because it isn’t a conviction. It will follow you and it will cause numerous problem and issues down the road. At the least it causes undo embarassment and at the worst in can prevent employment. If you did things that warranted a RO than you deserves the problems that come with that, but don’t you dare sit there and tell me that if a man hasn’t done anything he should just deal with the problems that RO is going to create in his life because the ends justify the means.

57

[QUOTE=Claire Beauchamp;14133262 Did you miss the first part of the paragraph that you pulled a quote from? Yes, there are people who use an RO incorrectly, and perhaps judges who pass them out too freely. But again, when something is he said / she said (or whatever genders are in play), would you rather a judge deny an RO when there was really a need? I’m sorry your ex played this on you and you have worked up quite a head of indignation and anger about this. Yeah, OK, your case is a case of an incorrect ruling. People are shits and judges are fallible. Does that mean that (a) men in general are this huge persecuted class that should never ever have an RO unless they’ve caused bleeding and broken bones, or that (b) the whole idea of an RO should be trashed? No.[/QUOTE]

Well, here I am again after I promised myself I was done for the night. However your POV has disturbed me so much I have to revisit the subject with a thought that just came to me.

First, in the above quote you admit that there are people who use RO’s incorrectly yet you don’t see to really have a problem with this. You go on to justify these actions by saying that because some have a need for them, others should suffer. It really disturbs me that there are people out there that think like this. You are so focused on the issue that collateral damage doesn’t matter to you. But that isn’t why I am writing again. It is to share a story with you:

When my ex requested the RO on me I hired an attorney to fight it because I was innoccent of all accusations and I was going to defend my good name. My attorney told me from the outset that my chance of winning this and getting the RO request denied was almost zero. It would cost me a fortune and he would do his best. He then went on to tell me about the battered womens shelter I mentioned upthread that was being sued at the time for convincing women to get RO’s on their husbands/boyfriends without any evidence or reason to have one.
Anyways, when we were in court on the hearing for this RO there was a woman standing in the back row talking to my ex that I had never seen before. I asked my attorney who this woman was and he told me “she is a representative from the local women’s shelter, probably there for advice and support”. This shocked me because I hadn’t threatened or hit my ex so it really confused me why there would be any reason for a rep from the shelter to be there. I mean women shelters are there to help women who have been battered and abused right? Not someone who has never been either, so why was she there.
Well, as the case went on I occasionally looked over at this woman and watched her reactions to the testimony. When my ex got up on the stand her expression was one of confidence. When I got up on the stand to tell my side of the story her expression was one of digust. When my attorney questioned my ex and got her to admit that I have done absolutely nothing to her, this womans expresion was literally anger. All the while I am wondering why in the world this woman had all this hatred towards me. She certainly never met me or knew anything about me except what my soon to be ex wife told her. There was no interest from her in the testimony. No curiosity as to wether or not an RO was justified. She was out for blood and that blood was mine. I was puzzled, why? I just couldn’t understand it.
Then it happend, the judge granted the RO. Of course I was confused. How could the judge reach this conclusion after the testomony and the evidence presented? It didn’t make any sense. It is okay I told myself, my attorney said I had not much of a chance to win this, this outcome was expected.
Then I look over at the lady from the shelter. She is hugging my wife and acting like she had just won the Super Bowl or something. Then it hit me, it all came into focus. This woman didn’t care about the evidence. It made no difference to her wether or not my wife was telling the truth. The only thing important was that another man was shown that women were in control and they had the backing of the judicial system. They could use the courts as an enforcer.
As we left the court room I kept playing in my mind over and over how overwhelming the evidence was that I was no danger to anyone, certainly not my wife or children but how that didn’t matter. What also bothered me was this woman whom I never met nor had even said so much as an unkind word to was so intent on seeing me persecuted. Why? I thought logically about it and then it came to me. This woman was not what we would call attractive. She was very overweight and wasn’t blessed with anything that would be remotely attractive to the opposite sex. That didn’t matter to me, but I realized that it mattered to her. I realized that more than likely she has been treated badly by men all her life. In high school she probably endured endless teasing about her weight, probably had few if any dates and was always the one going stag to the school dance. As adult life came around she didn’t fare much better. It was obvious she had given up trying, for it was plain to see she didn’t take care of herself and made no attempt to style her hair or dress nice.
But, she did have this. She had the power and ability to strike back at all of the men in her life that had teased her or ignored her. Now was her time. She could cause problems and heartache for the men, any men. It didn’t matter who they were or if they had ever done anything to her. Her weapon was convincing other women to turn on the men they had and the ammunition was the RO’s.
Now I know that those reading this will think that I am making this up and I assure you that I am not. This is exactly the picture that I got that day. I understood now why the shelter was being sued, I understood why this rep from the shelter took such an active role and interest in seeing an RO with my name on it. It wasn’t really was personal, it was their MO. I just happen to be available as a target.
Sadly Claire, you remind me of this woman. Maybe not in looks, but certainly in attitude and purpose. Neither you or this woman cared if the RO that was about to placed upon me was justified. It didn’t matter. There was some man, somewhere that was going to abuse or hurt a woman and if I had to suffer for that, well that is just the price of doing business.
The sad part is, men like myself who at one time actually donated money to organizations that helped battered women no longer care to offer support. Not because I don’t care about the safety of women, but because I see that the unfotunate women who truly need help are being used to persecute innoccent men in the name of “better safe than sorry”.
The reason Claire that this issue is so important to me, why I am vocal in my opinion and why I will take the time to write paragraph after paragraph isn’t personal. My ordeal sucked, but it was mine and as a whole doesn’t amount to squat to anyone but me. However after becoming active in the divorced dads online communities I started noticing others that were sharing stories similiar to mine. Not kinda like mine, but exactly like mine. So much in fact that it didn’t seem like coincidence. No, it seemed more like a deliberite conspiracy.
People need to be aware of the price paid by those of us that have been falesly accused. As one of the posters above mentioned the zero investigations of perjury in the cases of RO’s has to change. The government needs to send a message that it will not stand for the slander of good men because a woman wants to use an RO as a “fuck you card”. Your argument might stand a chance if you would strongly denounce the women of this world who use the court system as a means of revenge. Until you do that you will always be viewed as the girl above, exploiting a good cause for her own means.

58

Claire Beauchamp, obbn, and jtgain: Remember you are in the General Questions forum, not Great Debates. Please limit this discussion to whether (and how) restraining orders can be appealed – not to an argument over how and when they should be granted.

Feel free to start a new thread in GD if you’d like to debate the subject.

59

In the state I was familiar with, there is the broad category of Protective Orders (POs), under which there are Orders of Protection (OPs) and Injunctions Against Harassment (IAHs). OPs are issued when there is/was a “family” relationship between the parties; IAHs are issued when the defendant is alleged to have committed more than 1 act of harassment in the last year.
The plaintiff files the paperwork for the PO and has an ex parte hearing before the Judge/Magistrate (ex parte: the defendant isn’t notified and isn’t present at the hearing). I couldn’t find an instance where a PO wasn’t ordered; after all only 1 side is presented and erring on the side of being safe not sorry is a good thing. If the Judge/Magistrate grants the PO, the defendant is served with a copy of the PO by an officer of the court. On the served PO is a notice of the defendant’s right to request a hearing on the matter. The state courts’ websites had much good information for the plaintiff about obtaining an PO as well as for the defendant about what was involved in being served one and the right to request a hearing.
Short answer: yes, a PO is appealable/hearingable.

Now my fun story because I like to tell it :slight_smile:

I was a regular at a coffee shop and there was this waitress. We joked & kidded around and she’d insist on being my waitress but it went no farther than chatting outside on cigarette breaks or after her shift (I mention this to show that I wasn’t a customer she was being nice to because she had to, she chose to spend time with me when she didn’t have to). This goes on for maybe a year and I lend her some money - red flag!; no, nothing changes for 6 months.
Then we start seeing each other outside of the coffee shop and things heat up. Things are going along fine for maybe 5 months then 1 day I get a “Dear dba Fred/Dear John” email saying it’s over, doesn’t say why it’s over, just that it is but to feel free to call her if I wished to discuss it further. I take a few days (all the while continuing to go to the coffee shop but avoiding her station) to compose a reply saying if she gave me a reason, then there might be something to discuss. If she’d dumped me like an adult, I would have been unhappy but probably could have still been friends with her.
Word gets out around the coffee shop and people at a coffee shop love to talk (as do people everywhere), I didn’t have to ask any questions. I soon learned that a customer had bought her a used car, a few weeks later I learned they were engaged, a few weeks later she quit and went to work at another coffee shop. Because many of the friends and former coworkers were invited to or were going to be in her wedding, I was told where it was going to be, a city park and it only took a few minutes online to find the date & time of the wedding.
I let it be known to her friends and former coworkers that I knew the date & time & place and since it was a public park and I was a taxpayer and I wasn’t working that day … I guess word got back to her :smiley:
To this day, I am the only person who knows for sure if I was at the park that day, some of the attendees think I was, a few think they saw me.
Here’s where it gets fun - the day after the wedding, I was served with an Injunction Against Harassment (AIH). It seems the Friday before her Monday wedding, she went to court and had the IAH issued but couldn’t get it served in time for it to be in effect at her wedding-I guess I was still on her mind :slight_smile:
I of course felt terribly wronged by this injustice, I hadn’t spoken to her since before her “Dear dba fred” email, I wasn’t stalking her or harassing her (I had been to her new place of employment twice but didn’t sit in her station & was a perfect customer). This was a call to arms! :mad: I did my research of the state law, got a CD and transcript of the hearing, and filed my Request for Hearing on the matter. (In my research I found all the traffic tickets she’d been issued, the repossession of her vehicle, her 1st marriage & divorce papers and the application for & issuance of her marriage license lots of stuff.)
I was granted a hearing; I printed out all the relevant documents and emails, had my gray suit dry-cleaned, polished my shoes & was at the courthouse an hour before the hearing. And … :eek:
She didn’t show up - it seems she’d neglected to notify the court of her new address. I was there & ready to proceed, she wasn’t, the IAH was dismissed. It gets better. A day or two later I’m at the original coffee shop, regaling an older full of piss and vinegar gal about my legal triumph, and I tell her that now I have to go to the other coffee shop. This gal looks me in the eye and says “I’ll go with you!” :wink: So we make a date for a day when we know the waitress/plaintiff is working to go there and do so. We don’t sit in the plaintiff’s station, we cause no problems but know we are noticed.
It gets betterer :slight_smile: We go to leave, I’m paying the bill and I see the manager is on the phone. The manager follows us out and says “I’d like to speak to you” just as the police car pulls up. When Officer Friendly is 5 steps away, I pull the Notice of Dismissal of the IAP off my clipboard and hand it to him. Officer Friendly looks at the Notice and says to the manager “there’s no problem here.” The manager didn’t know what to do or say, the waitress/plaintiff had told him she had an IAH against me and it turns out she didn’t :smack:. I did get 86’d from the restaurant but didn’t have to worry that I’d be arrested for inadvertently being within 300 feet of her.
So the short answer after a long story is still yes, an Protective Order is appealable/hearingable, and sometimes the innocent party wins.

60

Missed the edit: The marriage didn’t last a year :smiley: