by Rick Hobbs

Created on: December 10, 2008

As seemingly necessary as they may be professed by the legal community, how is it that an order of protection, a restriction imposed on the permission to be in the same vicinity of the supposedly endangered individual, is actually a protection? And at what expense does this effort come?

Impartially examined, does the revocation of an individual's right to freely associate with a part of society actually impart a sense of security? Or do we not recognize that an imposed restriction is only effective if the object of the restriction is willing to comply with it?

THE EFFECT ON THE "ENDANGERED" PARTY

It is a fact that, despite the best efforts of the law enforcement community, a call initiated to 911 that one who is restricted under an order of protection is in fact violating that order will result in a response time of no less than two minutes, and likely longer. (If this does not seem a substantial period of time, just try something simple-like holding your breath for two minutes. It seems much longer now, doesn't it?)

Violence preplanned (and violence performed while under an order of protection would have to be considered preplanned, wouldn't it?) can and does occur in seconds, not minutes.

And if by providence no violence or lasting harm occurs, proving the supposed violation of the order (assuming the violator has not awaited the arrival of the police) is now virtually impossible. Does this contribute to a sense of security or confident reliance on the court order?

THE EFFECT ON THE RESTRICTED PARTY

Imagine standing before a court, explaining to the judge that you simply moved out of the house and intend to seek a divorce. You assure the court that you have no desire to see or talk to the plaintiff (who is seeking the order of protection against you). You assert that you have not, nor will you contact the plaintiff.

The judge asks the plaintiff if you have contacted them since your departure. He asks if you have threatened, harassed, or called them. He further asks if you have shown up at the house, their place of work or worship, the supermarket, the bank, or anyplace the plaintiff frequents. Has the respondent called the plaintiff on the phone? Has the respondent called your workplace, your friends?

As the plaintiff responds to the judge's queries, you feel a sense of calm assurance, recognizing that each expression the plaintiff makes confirms to the court that you pose no danger. Each answer given indicates no misconduct on your part.

After a brief consideration,

• 1
• 2
• Next Page >>