It’s possible that your specific TRO had that component. You seemed to be making a general statement about TROs (“when a TRO is placed …”), which I think is incorrect.
Re WIC, my point stands, but I’m not inclined to argue it.
Your other points about gender have some validity, but I was commenting about your specific point about WIC.
I will conciede that possibly my WIC comment might be overblown on my part. I just thought it seemed strange the very name excludes men. Accidential or intentional? I only pointed this out to point out the prevailing attitude in society that men don’t need help or are somehow considered different in society.
As far as my TRO, I don’t believe other than names and addresses the TRO placed on me was unique to my situation. I say this because the TRO was clearly a form letter type of document with blanks to fill in names and such. And quite honestly I can see why, if the TRO was placed for a legitimate reason, such verbage and restrictions would be put into place. However, as is a common theme in this discussion, the good intentions are being perveted by some to be used for their advantage.
Was your TRO unrelated to her claim of being afraid of you? TROs can be for anything. You can get one to stop someone from building a building or from leaving the state. I’ve never been married but it sounds standard that a divorcing person should be barred from making some of the financial changes you mentioned. The part that sounds strange is that she wasn’t also barred. Did she get the TRO without your knowledge then by the time you went to court, was the money already gone? Did the judge ever see the account balances before and after she cleaned you out?
Wow, obbn, you really sound like you’re calmly in charge of your situation and I salute you for that. Would you be able to contact newspaper and TV reporters and get some publicity for your situation? If there’s enough bad publicity about children’s welfare, maybe the DA could be “persuaded” to file charges against your ex. Is she still with the boyfriend she moved into your house? Has she moved on since your split?
While I’m sure that obbn has provided an accurate recitation of the facts, I’m not certain he’s providing an accurate recitation of the legal procedure. I don’t work in family law, but I find it more than a little dubious that even the most callous judge would “lock” the husband out of joint accounts without making any provision for him- and more dubious that he would do so as a provision of an essentially unrelated TRO.
If someone can find a TRO posted online which includes that provision, I’ll be happy to recant.
The question is, though, if a sufficiently callous judge did that, you seem to be saying his order is unreviewable. I’m saying that as a general principle, that’s just the kind of situation an interlocutory appeal would solve.
The TRO was exclusively asked for by making the claim of “being afraid” of me. Embellished quite liberally with pure fantasy of events that never happened or complete exaggerations of events that did take place.
The TRO was done without my knowledge and I had no opportunity to speak at the hearing. My attempt to fight it was after it had already been granted. At this point in the story we were still married and with no talk of a divorce. I could sense something was wrong in the marriage of course, but had no idea it was leading to this. I have to say that in retrospect it seems as if I was “set up” and that this was planned as a way to position herself for the upcoming divorce she knew was going to happen, but I didn’t. She was having an affair and I was totally clueless to the fact. Of course, when she moved in her boyfriend it became obvious and filled in the pieces to the puzzle. All of a sudden the akward feeling I had about something being wrong all made sense. Can’t tell you how stupid I felt finding out I had been so ignorant of the situation. I also felt very foolish, as I had a feeling for some time, a few months I guess, that something was very wrong between us. I tried so many times to ask what was wrong, to beg her to see a marriage counselor thinking that I could fix the problem even though I didn’t really know what it was. But, by that time, her mind was made up, she just had to figure out how to get out in a manner that best benifited her and no amount of trying on my part was going to help.
[quote=“Fubaya, post:123, topic:592269”]
I’ve never been married but it sounds standard that a divorcing person should be barred from making some of the financial changes you mentioned. The part that sounds strange is that she wasn’t also barred/QUOTE]
You bring up a good point, but you have to understand that when the TRO was granted we weren’t in the process of getting divorced. I suspect the reason that the person with the TRO placed on them is restricted from getting money from bank accounts is to prevent that person from causing a financial problem instead of a physical threat problem. I suppose that a pissed of boyfriend/husband could try to make life difficult for the one who put a RO on them by taking all of the available money they had. It does make sense to do it does make sense to put that restriction on if there is truly a threat, but you of course can see the problem if the RO is being used under a false pretence.
As explained above it was briefly mentioned in court, the judge asked me if the funds were in a joint account and when I affirmed they were, the matter was pretty much overlooked. As also mentioned, I could have put up a serious fight about it, but I didn’t have the funds to press the issue, $150 an hour for an attorney makes the bill add up quick.
Not to mention the fact that emotionally I was a complete wreck. Looking back on the events now it is a miracle that I was able to function at all. The money loss seems more important to me know than at the time. At the time I was trying to come to grips with the fact that my marriage was over (remember, I really didn’t know this was a possiblity, I knew we had a problem, but I could have never guessed it would lead to this.) and my family was being destroyed. I was in a haze. I was confused, scared and heartbroken. You also have to remember that I was watching my ex turn into a mean spirited person and I was having a hard time coming to terms with that. The divorce was so sudden, it wasn’t like I had time to prepare myself for what was happening.
[quote=“Really_Not_All_That_Bright, post:125, topic:592269”]
While I’m sure that obbn has provided an accurate recitation of the facts, I’m not certain he’s providing an accurate recitation of the legal procedure. I don’t work in family law, but I find it more than a little dubious that even the most callous judge would “lock” the husband out of joint accounts without making any provision for him- and more dubious that he would do so as a provision of an essentially unrelated TRO.QUOTE]
You sound like a lawyer so you are probably right in the fact that my recollection and understanding of the specific laws, rulings etc… might be in error. The only thing I know is what the final outcome was. I had an attorney and of course he handled the legal stuff.
What I did walk away with is the experience that not all attorneys are equal and that in order to get a really decent representation you need to be able to pony up some serious money. I won’t go as far as saying my attorney didn’t have my best interest in mind, but I did get the feeling that because I was on a very limited budget that the quicker he got this case disposed of the better.
On the subject of the TRO, I think what you fail to understand is that a TRO doesn’t seem to follow the saying “Innocent until proven guilty”. It really felt like I was guilty and would have to prove myself innocent. It felt that the only concern was for my ex who filed for the TRO. The impression I got was that everything in the world was being done to protect her, to make sure there was no way I could do any harm, wether it be financial or physical. If circumstances left it that I was unable to pay for food or shelter, so be it. If it wasn’t for my family I would have been in a world of trouble.
In the end it is quite possible that my situation was extreame and one of the worst. My current attorney has told me that he considers my ex to be “one of the worst he has ever seen”. This man is a older, very experienced attorney who has handled thousands of cases. Perhaps I was unfortunate enough to be in the Perfect Storm of TRO/Divorce hell. Who knows? But, what I do know is that abuse of the RO system is rampant and the RO part of my story is not unique to my situation. There has to be a serious look at this issue and changes need to be made to protect men (it is mostly men this happens to) from those who use the courts as their personal tool.
Also, as mentioned before I will attempt to find the copy of my RO, so I can quote the specific wording. It has been 7 years since this happened so it is impossible for me to recall the exact wording. I know that it is filed away in a box in the attic, obviously something that I have no desire to keep handy as a reminder.
Obbn, how are your kids doing now? Do you have a good relationship with them? Are they aware of your dealings with your ex-wife and what do they have to say about their relationship with her? Has your ex-wife mellowed out somewhat or is she still jerking you around? I hope your situation is looking up and your relationship with your current wife is good.
Well, thanks for the concern. First off I am re-married to a wonderful woman who has been more supportive through all this than I ever thought possible. It is difficult for her to see the emotional roller-coaster I am on, but she is always there to lend support or a sympathetic ear.
My kids have proven incredibly resiliant through all of the changes in their young lives. I have done my absolute best to be a good father. Although because of recent actions of my ex I no longer am able to see them often I call every single night and do the best I can to be involved in their lives. The bad side to this is they are used as weapons against me. The parental allienation that is happening is obcene. It is obvious that the children are being “indoctronated” (sp?) by my ex and it shows in the way they treat me sometimes. Hopefully it will be apparent to the court during the latest action that is pending. Unfortunately I lack the resources neccassary to have phycological workups done to prove my case. My biggest concern is the mental health of my children and the ability for me to be a part of their lives. I cannot tell you how heartbreaking it is to be seperated from your kids when they are young.
As far as actions by my ex, they are constant and I have to live my life always on alert to possible threats. I am always sure that if I have to be near her that it is in public and in the presence of law enforcement for my protection. All communication is written, so that there is always a record of what is said. I have found that it is too easy to be falsely accused of something.
As mentioned in previous posts, I tell my story whenever possible in the hope that changes will be made. Sometimes I feel like breaking down and feel as if I am too tired to fight any longer. However that feeling only last until I see a picture of my kids or talk to them on the phone. I will never give up fighting for them and my rights as a father, no matter what the cost to me. Thanks to everyone here for the kind comments and good wishes.
No proof, no RO, period? That sounds rough, especially since things like, “You stupid bitch, I’m going to kill you” and then creepily showing up where you are all the time makes the burden of proof especially difficult…but why wouldn’t a battered women’s shelter encourage ROs? I worked at a hotline/office once and I certainly knew all the steps to getting one in my area/state! Most women don’t request an RO when they really need one. Women who can’t disentangle themselves from abusive partners is half the problem. :o
Generally, no. That’s what happened in my case - he filed an RO as a retaliation (preemptive strike?) before he was arrested. Each are decided on their own merits, though the court/s may be aware of the other.
*Ha.
*
In the end, we both found ourselves cleared of all charges (mine, civil; his, criminal). Unfortunately, one of us really was guilty.
Maybe I’m only speaking for my state; sorry. It just sounded like common sense.
Right. Because only women get nasty in a divorce.
Considering the number of women who go back to abusive spouses, maybe they have a good idea.
Well, a few things:
If a women does it early on (say, the first hit/violent outburst/whatever), it can help stop the cycle of abuse in the very earliest stages.
ROs aren’t just for women or men in abusive relationships. If your crackhead ex-coworker is making threats or whatever, these can come in handy. Again, it can act as a deterrent…and everyone has the right to be free from harassment. There is a degree of liberty that we’ve come to value in America, in case you haven’t noticed.
In most states, a violation of that R.O. = jail time. So that’s the real benefit.
My criminal-triggered TRO against the offender resulted in: 10 months of monitoring (bet that was uncomfortable in the summer months…), a trial (in which a jury of our peers found him ‘not guilty’ to the surprise of the assistant DA) a hefty bill for the offender, six days in jail (gotta love mandatory furloughs and budget cuts) and slight peace of mind knowing that he probably wasn’t hanging around my place of employment, school, or house.
BTW, after that relationship ended (and I’d known him for three years and was in the dark about all of this), I found out that this was his third offense in the state!
So while your story sucks and all, I’m not convinced it’s the norm. As someone on this board once said, “Don’t stick your dick in the crazy.” I now run an extremely thorough background check on everyone I’m potentially going to date. No, I’m not kidding.
The problem I guess isn’t that a woman’s shelter advocates RO’s, the problem lies in the fact that they are advocating and advising RO’s be taken out even when there isn’t a threat of any sort. There is a price that is paid by the person with an RO on his record, so if it isn’t warranted it shouldn’t be granted. Encouraging someone to lie and get an RO under false pretenses is NOT okay.
There has to be some standard of proof, how can you justify the position that just because one is requested one should be granted? What then would keep anyone (male or female?) from using the system for revenge or a way to hurt someone? Ro’s have their rightful place in our society, but falsely accusing somone for your own amusment shouldn’t be tolerated.
You said it was a battered women’s shelter. Clearly there was some battery going on somewhere. Why else would you be getting a RO ?
The burden of proof for a TRO is very light and that is how it should be. It is very hard to ‘prove’ someone is harassing you. Remember, these are civil courts we’ve been (mostly) talking about, not criminal ones.
I can only refer you to my previous quotes in this thread and those of some others. I will save followers of this thread a complete review of previous statements. I will give you briefly some reasons for a woman to get a RO under false pretense:
To better position themselves in an upcoming divorce. Looks bad for the one with the RO against them. Can be used as a bargaining chip during the divorce process.
To use as a means of revenge or as a means of causing hurt to someone.
To better their positin in a custody battle
These are just three of the many reasons false RO’s are taken out. As I have stated numerous times in this thread, I am not advocating the complete demise of RO’s as a means to protect someone under threat. However I am fully aware that RO’s are being used on a widespread basis, without justification. They are granted mearly on a statement of fear without any underlying proof that they are warranted.
Your statement that clearly there is someone being battered somewhere as justification is simply mind boggling. Right now there is someone somewhere being raped, should we start locking up random men? Because there are unbalanced people out there you think that we should persecute the innoccent?
Your assertion that because this is a matter for the civil courts, therefor there is no penalty against someone who has a false RO placed upon them is 100% inaccurate. A person with a falsely placed RO is restricted in freedom of movement, they can be barred from their home, they can be denied access to financial accounts, denied access to their children and so on. This is only in the short term. In the long term the placement of an RO on their record can seriously hamper their ability for employment, effectively bars them from employment in many government positions. It also can be a reason for denial in activities such as Boy Scouts, school functions etc.
This even if they have done nothing wrong. If there is going to be a system in place that is going to cause difficulties for someone by just a accusation, then there must be a system in place to ensure that an inoccent person isn’t caught up in this.
You tell me that the burden of proof for a TRO or RO should be light. I would almost be willing to concede this point IF you also agree that if it can be proven that the person who requested the RO lied and fabricated a story to have one placed that they should face severe penalties. These penalties should include: Contempt, Lying to Law Enforcement and they should be open to a slander suit.
I have no problem with RO’s being granted in cases that warrant them. However, the system currently in place allows RO’s to be used maliciously and that misuse can cause significant harm.
If you think that my belief that RO’s are used as weapons against men and are put in place under false accusations is BS, I encourage you to do a quick google search. Read the stories of those falesly accused, see if those stories don’t sound amazingly similiar. I would also bet that if you became a victim of a false accusation and had your good name tarnished as a result, your view would be a bit different. It is easy to get caught up in the “good cause” mentality of the issue, without taking the time to understand the terrible effects caused by the abuse of the system.
So if I’m understanding you correctly, this guy got 10 months of monitoring, a hefty bill, and six days in jail, despite not being found guilty of anything.
Now you’ve said that he was in fact guilty, and this may well be true, and obviously no one here is any position to challenge you about this. But what does seem to be the case from your own story is that beneficiaries of TROs are in a position to inflict enormous harm on the subjects of these orders, despite the very low threshold of proof required.
Again, in your case, this may have been justified if the guy was a creepy jerk as you say. But in general, what you’ve written appears to be confirmation that the legal system is heavily stacked in this area, and gives ostensible victims power to inflict enormous damage on their supposed abusers, whether their stories are true or not.
[Unless you’ve left out some details in your story above.]
No. I can walk into a stadium but that doesn’t make me a football player. I can walk into a museum but that doesn’t make me an artist.
It isn’t normal for a guy to get an ankle monitor for something like this for months unless the prosecution and judge had very good reason to request/grant it. And they did. Generally it is temporary and comes off quickly, but because of the pre-trial evidence, it stayed on him as many times as the trial was postponed by his atty. (Actually, I take this back. It may have been 6 months with the thing on - November through the following summer.)
Again, this was criminal and the RO was triggered automatically. And I sincerely do believe that that ankle monitor saved me more grief.
I didn’t inflict any abuse on the man. For chrissake, I was the one who got mangled.
If you walk in to a stadium, you are probably there to see a show. If you go to a museum, you are probably going to get info about what you are seeing.
My point was that battered women’s shelters take these women at their word and have seen the worst. Of course they encourage TROs. They’re in the business of protecting women from abusers. Derh.
[QUOTE]
I didn’t ask.
[QUOTE]
That’s not my statement.
Huh?
I do not make this claim.
It’s called a trial.
Sure.
I can accuse you of anything right now. In some states, for a violent or sexual crime, you’d automatically be arrested. It doesn’t mean you’ll be tried.
I was a victim of a false report. :smack: