Results 1 to 10 of 19

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    California
    Posts
    20,594

    Default Re: Lifting a DV-130 (Order of Protection) in California

    If it was issued for two years, then proof of service was provided to the court. he also admits to NOT attending the hearing ... ouch for him.

    Most courts are not going to entertain a motion to vacate the order without something new. he had his chance to contest the order, but chose not to go.

    But, yes, he can pay a lot of money for an attorney to file this and that, and maybe even get a new hearing. But, the odds of it being reversed is slim.

  2. #2

    Default Re: Lifting a DV-130 (Order of Protection) in California

    My view from dealing with this is stuff is "try anyway." See where it goes.
    But I really suggest the original poster find some good evidence before trying.
    Because otherwise, it seems a little silly to have nothing good to argue with and then show up.

    Unless the judge bars the original poster from talking about things or the petitioner tries to suppress/quash, he could attempt to talk his views regardless of new evidence. But if he loses that round, he'll have to wait and try later with something much better.

    Also, I keep getting this feeling from aardvarc and cdwjava that you two hold a pessimistic feel to a lot of this stuff.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    California
    Posts
    20,594

    Default Re: Lifting a DV-130 (Order of Protection) in California

    You might call it pessimism, we call it realism. We deal with this stuff every day. While hope is great - and it springs eternal - giving false hope is not a good thing. And any REAL attempt to revisit the issue with an attorney is likely to cost at the low end about $2-3,000 just to get a coin toss with the judge. But, if money is no object, heck, try anything.

    When I have seen these orders altered it is often because the protected party does not oppose the change in the order or actively supports it. Even then, the judge is more likely to modify from NO contact to PEACEFUL contact rather than remove it entirely.

    The problem the OP has is that he had his day in court, and he CHOSE not to appear. The court may not be too keen on the expense of a new hearing when the original one should have been just fine.

  4. #4

    Default Re: Lifting a DV-130 (Order of Protection) in California

    Well, the issue has to do with filing of the motion to vacate. It wouldn't be good enough to state "I wasn't sure what to do. But now I am." And then turn it into the circuit clerk with the hope that they'll take you serious.

    The original poster has already stated belief for the individual being mentally unstable. A month is quite some time to give a person to cool off from one single threat, especially when the relationship lasted six years. I suspect he has some reasoning as to why it would take that long for her to cool off. And if it's because he understands she can be an unstable person, all he has to do is prove that with evidence/witnesses.
    MOTION TO VACATE
    I wasn't sure what to do. But now I am.

    X regank33
    Not a good approach.

    Man, a lot of this stuff is easy second-semester college English. Basic argumentation. But the legalese is where stuff matters.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    California
    Posts
    20,594

    Default Re: Lifting a DV-130 (Order of Protection) in California

    Quote Quoting untouchedworld
    View Post
    The original poster has already stated belief for the individual being mentally unstable.
    We hear that every day about the ex ... absent some sort of clinical determination that might also include a tendency to enter into flights of fancy and lies, the fact that an ex says their former partner is mentally unstable will elicit little more than a yawn from the court.

    A month is quite some time to give a person to cool off from one single threat, especially when the relationship lasted six years. I suspect he has some reasoning as to why it would take that long for her to cool off. And if it's because he understands she can be an unstable person, all he has to do is prove that with evidence/witnesses.
    He had that chance ... he did not attend the hearing. And unless his witnesses include a qualified psychologist and that the medical determination shows a proclivity towards making stuff up, why should it be given any weight now?

    Yes, it is possible that the OP lives in a location where the courts have time on their hands to revisit these matters. But, in most parts of this state right now, that just ain't the case. He MIGHT get a hearing in a few months ... maybe ... if the court is open to hear it without anything new. I doubt it will be, but, ya never know.

    It doesn't hurt him to try if he has the money. But, a real effort with an attorney is going to be costly. A local family law attorney might be able to give him some idea of how much of a chance he has to get before a judge without any new evidence, and how likely a local court might be in modifying the order. Most consultations are free .. it is the effort that will be costly.

  6. #6

    Default Re: Lifting a DV-130 (Order of Protection) in California

    Well, yes, probabilities are a big factor. That's why I say it's pessimistic to give a hasty generalization. The realism comes in with a social science descriptor (statistics on past events) rather than anecdotal experience. Even then, anecdotal experience from a single attorney is not worthwhile, thus giving more reason to talk to multiple attorneys rather than one to obtain a general ideal as to what the probability of getting a hearing is. I used to be very much into the social sciences and humanities. Given the ability to look at the historical aspects of past cases and to review what has been allowed to deem a hearing from a motion to vacate, one can get insight as to how to approach a motion to vacate. At that point, the person is gaming the system. Seems like some attorneys have a grasp on the research involved to compute knowledge on what works and what does not.

    So, my view of realism comes from knowledge of rhetoric, statistics, barriers to entry, and the linguistics involved to allow the bivariant acceptance to have a hearing. I'm different, though, because I have a Ph.D level IQ.

    The original poster seems to be an engineer. All he has to do is treat it as an engineering problem. That will take time, but it's not impossible.

    One aspect is that he could get a hearing, make a motion to suppress evidence of the ex-gf and claim (right?) she hasn't laid foundation to prove it was him. It depends on how volatile the evidence is/was. So, he could just put in the motion to vacate that false allegations occurred. I feel as though with saying this that perhaps this is going in the unethical advice section. If it were a cell phone, perhaps the message were deleted. Furthermore, with the calculus (rate of change) by which people get new cell phones, it's possible that if it were a cell phone message, the message was erased, deleted, and/or a new cell phone was obtained. This would also be dependent on how much time has passed. A little investigation would help in this point. Were it an Internet message, there would still be the need to show that it was him.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    California
    Posts
    20,594

    Default Re: Lifting a DV-130 (Order of Protection) in California

    Quote Quoting untouchedworld
    View Post
    Well, yes, probabilities are a big factor. That's why I say it's pessimistic to give a hasty generalization. The realism comes in with a social science descriptor (statistics on past events) rather than anecdotal experience. Even then, anecdotal experience from a single attorney is not worthwhile, thus giving more reason to talk to multiple attorneys rather than one to obtain a general ideal as to what the probability of getting a hearing is.
    That's fine ... multiple consultations, then. It still doesn't change the fact that to do this with the aid of an attorney is going to be an expensive proposition and cost must be part of the equation.

    I used to be very much into the social sciences and humanities.
    Wonderful. I still am. Though they have little bearing on whether a court might hear the case or not, and on the status of any evidence that might persuade a court to modify an order.

    So, my view of realism comes from knowledge of rhetoric, statistics, barriers to entry, and the linguistics involved to allow the bivariant acceptance to have a hearing. I'm different, though, because I have a Ph.D level IQ.
    Your IQ has no bearing on the issue as well. And ... what IS a "PhD level IQ?" I do not recall any such test prior to seeking a PhD.

    The original poster seems to be an engineer. All he has to do is treat it as an engineering problem. That will take time, but it's not impossible.
    And physics will still prevail ... if the court refuses to grant a new hearing, they refuse to grant a new hearing. But, it is the OP's time and money to waste. He can conduct the cost-benefit analysis and come to his own conclusion.

    1. Sponsored Links
       

Similar Threads

  1. Child Abuse: How Do I Go About Lifting a No Contact Order
    By athurman in forum Abuse and Neglect
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 10-23-2011, 07:21 PM
  2. Lifting a No Contact Order in Florida
    By goldie in forum Orders of Protection
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 06-04-2009, 11:44 PM
  3. Lifting a No Contact Order
    By hovering in forum Orders of Protection
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 05-10-2009, 06:54 PM
  4. Lifting an Unwanted Order of Protection Against My Boyfriend
    By momof20708 in forum Orders of Protection
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 08-29-2008, 06:37 PM
  5. Lifting a No Contact Order on a Spouse
    By qwerty93 in forum Orders of Protection
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 10-10-2007, 04:56 PM
 
 
Sponsored Links

Legal Help, Information and Resources