[cadillac59]

You are missing my point

many guys DIDN'T commit an act of DV
many girls just claim that because it is the easy way to get them out of their house than standing up for themselves and kicking them out. Then they want to contact them and work things out.

Why if they want a TRO against the guy would they want to keep contacting them???? If they want an abusive guy out of their life why would they want the stipulation of it being a one way thing?
They want it both ways because they WANT contact with the guy they ACCUSED of abuse but they want the TRO to back them up when their FEELINGS for him change again.

You are missing my point

No. The point is you don't have a point.

[/B][/B][many guys DIDN'T commit an act of DV many girls just claim that because it is the easy way to get them out of their house than standing up for themselves and kicking them out. Then they want to contact them and work things out. [/B]

If a guy didn't commit an act of DV then he shouldn't have a restraining order against him. That's what we have courts for, and trials, to make findings of fact (to find out if the guy committed DV) and then to apply the law.

Why if they want a TRO against the guy would they want to keep contacting them????

Who said they wanted to keep contacting the guy? You might be talking about 1 in 1000 cases, who knows? But what you are saying is not universally true, or even true in the majority of cases.

If they want an abusive guy out of their life why would they want the stipulation of it being a one way thing?

Well, let's see. Maybe they don't want to give up their guns (they like to hunt, feel they need a gun for self-defense, for example)? Maybe they just don't want their names in a criminal law enforcement data base that covers the entire USA? There are many possible reasons. There are several negative consequences to having a DV restraining order against you. I would never allow a client of mine to agree to a restraining order being mutual. If I had to get a restraining order against someone else, I surely would not want it to be mutual, would you when you hadn't done anything to have one against you?

They want it both ways because they WANT contact with the guy they ACCUSED of abuse but they want the TRO to back them up when their FEELINGS for him change again.[/I][/I][/I][/B]

Again, this is not universally true. You might be thinking of a few cases you've heard of and are generalizing about the larger population of victims of DV. The people I've represented in DV cases never wanted any contact with the perpetrator after the restraining order went into effect.

[N0help4u]

Yeah I know the law should cover the multitude instead of being written to protect all the way around situations.
I am glad Pa, New York and some other states see it otherwise.

[cadillac59]

Yeah I know the law should cover the multitude instead of being written to protect all the way around situations.
I am glad Pa, New York and some other states see it otherwise.

I'm not convinced that the law is that different in other states. You mentioned what happens in PA, but what is that based on? Your personal observations, what someone told you down the street or at the hair salon? One case you heard of where the police, in their discretion, chose not to investigate a restraining order violation? That doesn't prove anything. That doesn't establish what the law is.

I cited the actual law in California--chapter and verse-- and gave the reasons for it and examples of why it makes sense. You say PA is different. Fine. Cite the relevant PA statute or case law. I've love to read it.

[N0help4u]

My DA teachers in paralegal school.
My local police and the captain and detective.
Constables
Children Protective Service workers and Judges (called CYF here).

[cadillac59]

My DA teachers in paralegal school.
My local police and the captain and detective.
Constables
Children Protective Service workers and Judges (called CYF here).

Teachers, police, and CPS workers are not legal authority. Laws are written in books or in published cases and put into place by legislatures or courts. That's legal authority. If you can't cite legal authority for your position then it's just rumor, speculation, guessing, the current urban legend, not law. In other words it doesn't mean anything. It could be a half-truth or just patently false.

[N0help4u]

There are a lot of people living rumors, speculation and guessing through what the Judge says then.
I do have to agree with what you are saying to a degree because many of the Judges rulings are based on what mood they happen to be in. I guess if what you are saying is right then these Judges that hand out these rulings are not following the law.
I have been saying that I don't see how they can rule a lot of things they do legally but this was one that made sense to me.
So I guess it is one more 'illegal' rulings by Judges that I can add to my ever growing list.

Here I trusted my district attorney family law teacher to have his facts right.

[cadillac59]

There are a lot of people living rumors, speculation and guessing through what the Judge says then.
I do have to agree with what you are saying to a degree because many of the Judges rulings are based on what mood they happen to be in. I guess if what you are saying is right then these Judges that hand out these rulings are not following the law.
I have been saying that I don't see how they can rule a lot of things they do legally but this was one that made sense to me.
So I guess it is one more 'illegal' rulings by Judges that I can add to my ever growing list.

Here I trusted my district attorney family law teacher to have his facts right.

There is statutory law on the subject of DV in PA. I can guarantee you that. But it is possible you have a DV prevention act that is silent on the issue of mutual orders; and it's also very possible that you have judges who, in applying the law, feel they are authorized to make mutual orders. Yes, very possibly. Some judges may feel this is good public policy and, until the legislature or a higher court tells them they cannot do this anymore, they are entitled to continue and probably will continue doing this. But one judge doesn't make the law either --not in a general sense, not beyond the one case he is involved in. So, judge #1 may make mutual orders in some cases, but maybe not all. His friend the judge in the next county may never make mutual ordes, and his friend in the department next to him may make all of his restraining orders mutual. So you see, if this is what is going on it would be incorrect to say that making mutual restraining orders is "the law" in PA. Because in this hypothethical, for example, it isn't-- the law is just unclear. It's a variable.

This may well be what is going on in your jurisdiction.

[cdad]

[QUOTE=cadillac59;1549495]

[/B][/B][many guys DIDN'T commit an act of DV many girls just claim that because it is the easy way to get them out of their house than standing up for themselves and kicking them out. Then they want to contact them and work things out. [/B]

If a guy didn't commit an act of DV then he shouldn't have a restraining order against him. That's what we have courts for, and trials, to make findings of fact (to find out if the guy committed DV) and then to apply the law.

[QUOTE]

Ok, here is where Im going to take issue. It is entirely possible for someone to get a restraining order in California with no domestic violence having taken place. Its also possible in California that when proven nothing had occurred that the restraining order can NOT be removed.
This is not a guess.. nor rumor. I know because I got the tshirt. My ex got one on me when nothing had occurred because her and her lawyer cooked it up. When I had my day in court the judge just figured it was a good day to write one. What I was told at the time was that it was because of the " what if " factor. And the courts could be held liable if they hadn't approved it. It was later proven to be a total fabrication.. but California law being what it is made it so it couldn't be removed based upon evidence. Yes.. a California law. So I can see how manipulative a system and some women are with the system. As it was I did manage to have all the teeth taken out of it by the time I got through with it and made the " fact " that it was a falsification go into court record. But the original restraining order had to go until it expired 2 years later. Just unreal. BTW.. no arrest no police report and no wittnesses even though her calim was that it occurred in front of my children.. insanity plus 1. It was at the time we were going through a custody evaluation. Pretty cute on her lawyers part.

As a side note I do not condone domestic violence in any way and realize that it does happen and the courts need to be there to protect people. Any man that raises a hand to a woman other then to offer help is in need of serious help himself.

[cadillac59]

[QUOTE=califdadof3;1550317][QUOTE=cadillac59;1549495]

[/B][/B][many guys DIDN'T commit an act of DV many girls just claim that because it is the easy way to get them out of their house than standing up for themselves and kicking them out. Then they want to contact them and work things out. [/B]

If a guy didn't commit an act of DV then he shouldn't have a restraining order against him. That's what we have courts for, and trials, to make findings of fact (to find out if the guy committed DV) and then to apply the law.

Ok, here is where Im going to take issue. It is entirely possible for someone to get a restraining order in California with no domestic violence having taken place. Its also possible in California that when proven nothing had occurred that the restraining order can NOT be removed.
This is not a guess.. nor rumor. I know because I got the tshirt. My ex got one on me when nothing had occurred because her and her lawyer cooked it up. When I had my day in court the judge just figured it was a good day to write one. What I was told at the time was that it was because of the " what if " factor. And the courts could be held liable if they hadn't approved it. It was later proven to be a total fabrication.. but California law being what it is made it so it couldn't be removed based upon evidence. Yes.. a California law. So I can see how manipulative a system and some women are with the system. As it was I did manage to have all the teeth taken out of it by the time I got through with it and made the " fact " that it was a falsification go into court record. But the original restraining order had to go until it expired 2 years later. Just unreal. BTW.. no arrest no police report and no wittnesses even though her calim was that it occurred in front of my children.. insanity plus 1. It was at the time we were going through a custody evaluation. Pretty cute on her lawyers part.

As a side note I do not condone domestic violence in any way and realize that it does happen and the courts need to be there to protect people. Any man that raises a hand to a woman other then to offer help is in need of serious help himself.

I don't say that restraining orders are never improperly granted, or that people never lie to get them. I'm sure that happens, but when it does it's not unique to California. And it's not an indictment of the entire system under which restraining orders are issued any more than a wrongful conviction is an indictment of the entire judicial system. It means the system is not perfect. That's all.

I've represented people at trials on restraining orders where the orders were denied, after trial, for insufficient evidence. That's not uncommon. I've seen TROs denied at the ex parte stage as well for insufficient evidence. So, I'm not sure I understand what your complaint is about domestic violence restraining orders in California.

If an injustice is done in any particular case, appeals are available. That's what appellate courts are for.

[cdad]

Im putting this out there because some of you might find it an interesting read.

http://www.ph.ucla.edu/class/chs/chs...ies/vites1.pdf