I've previously written on this blog about the process of getting or fighting a restraining order in California. If you haven't already, take a moment to read some of the basics here. In these introductory articles, I explain the legal procedures and the issues you should be prepared to discuss at your hearing.
I've also previously written on this blog about a common situation -- fighting a restraining order when the petitioner is crazy. Defending yourself against a crazy person requires a special strategy, and that's not the focus of this article.
Today's post is specifically about fighting a restraining order when the facts against you are BAD. Maybe you've said or done things that you're not proud of, and maybe the petitioner has proof (emails, text messages, surveillance videos, reliable witnesses, etc.). Even if you've behaved badly, and even if we all agree on what happened, it's not necessarily a slam dunk that the petitioner will walk out of court with a restraining order in hand. There are several effective strategies for fighting restraining orders, even if the facts appear bad at first glance.
There are situations where it may be futile to deny your bad behavior. If the petitioner has reliable proof, you will harm your own case by disingenuously trying to deny the facts. You will look like a liar, you will lose your credibility, and you will lose your case. Of course, that's not to say that you should admit to things you haven't done or confess when the evidence is weak. I'm speaking specifically about situations where you behaved badly and the petitioner can prove it.
Bad facts must be justified, excused or explained. A justification is a defense where you essentially argue that you did the RIGHT thing under the circumstances. Your behavior might have been illegal or improper in other situations, but perfectly proper in that particular place and time. "Self defense" or "defense of others" are common justifications. In most situations, for example, it is illegal to threaten someone with a weapon. If you threaten your neighbor with a bat to make him stop beating his wife, though, you've done a GOOD thing. If your neighbor then files a restraining order against you for threatening him with a bat, you should admit that you engaged in that conduct (you DID threaten him with a bat), and you should explain to the judge why your actions were justified under the circumstances.
If you can't justify your actions, maybe you can excuse them. An excuse is a defense where you acknowledge that your behavior wasn't "good", but you argue that you don't deserve to accept the blame. If, for example, you were involuntarily drugged, you might not deserve to be punished for your behavior while you were under the influence.
If your behavior can't be justified or excused, maybe it can at least be explained. An explanation is a defense where you admit that you did the wrong thing, but you argue that your blame is mitigated or reduced under the circumstances. For example, maybe you were provoked with offensive insults and you responded with violence. We don't agree that your violent reaction was appropriate, but maybe we understand why you reacted the way you did. Your outburst was out-of-character and it won't happen again.
That last part is important -- it won't happen again. As I've previously explained on this blog, a restraining order is an "injunction". An injunction is a court order that is intended to prevent some future harm that has not yet happened, not to punish you for some past wrongdoing. This is tricky. The issue that the judge must decide at the restraining order hearing is: has the petitioner proven that the respondent has harassed him or her? Sometimes -- and this is risky -- we must acknowledge that the respondent has committed some act of violence, threats or harassment against the petitioner, but we establish that the harm is not likely to reoccur in the future. Since we're talking about an injunction and not a criminal violation, the analysis doesn't stop with, "did this happen?". A restraining order is not appropriate unless the harm is likely to happen in the future. If the harm has already passed and is not likely to happen again, then a restraining order is not appropriate. There is valid case law to support this defense, but the proper citations and legal argument must be presented effectively by an experienced, competent lawyer. Don't try this at home.
If you or a loved one has questions about a restraining order in California, call us for a free attorney consultation. (714) 449-3335. Ask for John.
Thanks for reading.
No comments:
Post a Comment