Husband beating up wife. Concept of domestic violence
When are mutual orders of protection issued?
Courts, when confronted with petitions for orders of protection from both parties in a relationship, often issue each party a temporary order of protection, both orders mirroring the other, known as dueling restraining orders. If both parties are ordered not to do the same things to the other such as menacing, stalking, harassing, threatening, are both parties equally protected?
In most states, in order for the court to issue mutual orders of protection, there must be two separate petitions for an order of protection to be granted. Some states will not issue mutual orders of protection.
When do they harm?
The harm of mutual orders of protection occurs when the abuser is issued an order of protection against the victim and uses it to make false claims that the victim harassed, menaced, threatened, or stalked him. If the abuser uses the order of protection against the victim by claiming she is violating his order of protection, the victim can be arrested, incarcerated and charged with a felony in criminal court, furthering their ability to abuse the victim. The mutual order of protection becomes dangerous when the abuser misleads the court about the victim by making things up in order to create a criminal case against her.
Mutual orders of protection can undermine the victim’s safety, increasing the risk of additional violence, and creating confusion for the officials who are tasked with enforcing the orders.
Mutual orders can also be dangerous when there are children and both parents make allegations of violations of the order against each other and the police by law must arrest both. If there are children, the police must call in child protective services while the parents are touted off to jail leaving the children to be cared for by third parties until one of the parents is released. The parents can also be charged by child protective services with endangering the welfare of a child by exposing them to domestic violence.
When do they “protect”?
Often times when both parties in a relationship seek orders of protection against the other or one party files for an order of protection and the other party immediately files for their own order of protection, a judge or an attorney might suggest that the parties consent to the mutual orders of protection because “if you do not plan on violating the order, it should not bother you to have an order against you.” Consenting to mutual orders of protection avoids a hearing. In theory, both parties are presumptively protected by the mutual deterrence of the dueling orders of protection.
In divorce cases, the orders, while in effect can help prevent further disputes or arguments. These orders can serve as a safeguard to maintain the status quo and protect the rights and assets of both spouses while the divorce proceedings are ongoing assuming that both parties abide by the terms of the orders.
The presumption is that both parties are equally badly behaved and needing of protection from the other. The dynamic is not that of an abuser and a victim but rather two abusers. “News broke on March 27 that Dumontet is seeking a restraining order against Quinn. Quinn had filed her own request for a restraining order, according to documents obtained by TODAY.com.” The two have been ordered to attend mediation ahead of their upcoming April 27 court hearing in their domestic violence case.
Should Courts Continue to Issue Mutual Orders of Protection?
The effectiveness of mutual orders of protection relies on the protected parties willingness to abide by the terms of the order, a mutual deterrent effect on persons who mutually agree to be so constrained.
Women’s Groups argue that mutual orders harm women who are victims of domestic violence. When a protective order is issued to a batterer, the victims’ life is placed in greater danger.
Mutual orders of protection should not be issued without evidence of abuse by both parties. A hearing should be mandatory. They should not be issued to expedite the court’s calendar or to make swift dispatch of the court’s caseload. The risk to victims is too great to get it wrong by giving an abuser an order of protection that he can use to further abuse, harass, menace his victim and have her incarcerated. The court must make a determination of wrongdoing against only one of the parties.
“Abusers often seek restraining orders to further abuse or control survivors. When the trial court is deciding mutual requests for restraining orders, they cannot enter mutual restraining orders without first deciding that both parties are primary aggressors within the relationship, and that neither of them were acting in self-defense. The reason for this rule is that mutual domestic violence is very rare, and wrongful mutual restraining orders put the real victim of abuse at risk.”
