Can a Court Grant a DV Restraining Order if a Civil Order is In Effect

[ImagineJustice]

My question involves restraining orders in the State of: CALIFORNIA

Civil restraining order request filed 10/6 against X-in law
Hearing 10/29- Civil RO granted

Divorce granted 10/9

Plaintiff now 3/11 files request for DV Family Law RO against X in law who already has
a CH restraining order granted 10/29.

Is this possible? Can the court now grant a DV RO when a perfectly good CH RO has been granted? how to respond to court? arguement? law?

thank you

[AZDeputyClerk]

That can indeed be done. Domestic violence law is very specific about grounds for issuance of an order. If either parties request a hearing on these orders, that is when the matter of the two opposing orders could be addressed.

[cdwjava]

My question involves restraining orders in the State of: CALIFORNIA

Civil restraining order request filed 10/6 against X-in law
Hearing 10/29- Civil RO granted

Divorce granted 10/9

Plaintiff now 3/11 files request for DV Family Law RO against X in law who already has
a CH restraining order granted 10/29.

Is this possible? Can the court now grant a DV RO when a perfectly good CH RO has been granted? how to respond to court? arguement? law?

thank you

What is the relationship between the parties? A DV TRO would not generally apply if this is was just an ex in-law.

The real advantage between the two is that the law strongly encourages an arrest for violating a civil harassment order and mandates one for violating the DV order.

[ImagineJustice]

both the civil and then DV RO's are sought only as person wants property back that was gifted over 2 yrs ago. isn't this illegal to use court this way?

so this person figures better results in restraining order courts than going to small claims court and the courts are seeming sympathetic to this process so far
but I would think it is illegal to lie in court just to "get your way"

Nor Cal Cop, like your quote and your drink

[AZDeputyClerk]

There must have been something else in the testimony for the court to consider. DV and Civil restraining orders cannot address property matters, except perhaps granting exclusive use of a residence or restraining the defendant from coming into contact with pets (in some states). Property matters must go before the Civil Bench.

Do also note that most states are very specific in stating what acts are defined as Domestic Violence/Harassment. The statutes generally direct that if the plaintiff testifies or produces evidence that an act of DV/Harassment has occurred, the court SHALL issue the appropriate restraining order. If the matter involves property subject to a divorce, then that matter must be raised as a post judgment action to that case before the Family Law/Domestic Bench of the court.

[cdwjava]

both the civil and then DV RO's are sought only as person wants property back that was gifted over 2 yrs ago. isn't this illegal to use court this way?

What sort of property?

Were the two orders issued by the same court? Or, are they from different counties?

If the two parties qualify for a DV TRO, then why was a CHO ever issued? If they had a relationship that qualifies for a DV TRO (and if they had been married, it would) then the CHO should never have been issued. I suspect that one will be folded into the other if it comes to the court's attention.

A TRO does not generally divvy up personal property, that's a different matter, so I am not sure what good these two orders would do for that.

so this person figures better results in restraining order courts than going to small claims court and the courts are seeming sympathetic to this process so far
but I would think it is illegal to lie in court just to "get your way"

Lying to the court can be very, very bad ...

Nor Cal Cop, like your quote and your drink

The quote is nice, but I can't afford those mochas these days. Income dropping, costs increasing - ya gotta cut somewhere.

[ImagineJustice]

Nor Cal, property is a dog gifted to me 2008 by x in law. after their separation then divorce ,this person began lieing to get restraining orders- and FYI- defendants in RO hearings hardly get to even talk. no attorney to represent? crushed in court.

after suffering great harm to credibility, now this person making court hear case on dog ownership. in RO court!

there really are people with personality disorders that once they get a groove going manipulating the law and have legal court backing , before the law is the wiser, so much harm can be done to people and families. lying to court is very very bad, finding way to prove it before damage is done very very difficult.

This I know to be true, my family is experiencing it.

Income, cost of living, wow. what happened? Can not afford mochas, lattes, esp can not afford attorney


yes, that is the greatest love...John 15:13