“I just wanted to alert you regarding the amazing ease of obtaining a restraining order against someone.
“I am a landlord, and on Jan. 22, I had the sheriff issue a tenant/roommate a ‘notice to quit’ by the end of the month. The tenant, in retaliation the very next day, requested from the courts that I be slapped with a restraining order and be ordered to stay 100 yards away from her. I guess, lucky for me, the judge did not grant her the 100 yards, which would have gotten me out of my own house.
“This is absolutely outrageous, because the document says the court finds that I ‘constitute a credible threat, that an imminent danger exists to the life and health of the protected persons named in this action.’
“So…if the judge believed the stuff my tenant wrote in her request, why in the world would I be allowed to stay at the house? Now I have to wait two weeks for my hearing to present my side of the story and bring my witnesses.
“I’ve even been advised by my lawyer to leave the house, even though I don’t have to, because who knows what the tenant might claim next?
“How does any landlord in Durango evict a tenant when all the tenant has to do is claim harassment, and the judge will slap a restraining order on the landlord? Something is very wrong here!”
—Letter to the Editor (Durango Herald)
Take a guess when this letter to the editor was published.
It could be 20 years ago. It could be yesterday. The outrage, in either case, would be the same, and its source would be the same. Probably even the phrasing on the injunction would be the same. And possibly the same judge could have issued it.
“I just wanted to alert you regarding the amazing ease of obtaining a restraining order against someone”: The writer’s earnestness is almost heartbreaking. Think any journalists will follow up? That he’ll inspire a series of editorials or investigative exposés? What’s impressive is that he believes he’s saying something new or that what he’s saying only applies to Durango, Colorado. Why it’s impressive is that what he’s saying isn’t common knowledge and of course should be, because it’s been said over and over and over for decades.
The proofreader will have corrected the writer’s grammar without really having appreciated what it is he’s said or its implications. The desk editor will have run his letter, because it’s marginally interesting and maybe not the kind of complaint s/he gets every day. Some readers will have assimilated the letter and registered an instance of crookedness. Some will nod the nod of those who’ve heard it all before.
The letter was published two weeks ago, and whatever limited impression it made will have already faded.
Copyright © 2014 RestrainingOrderAbuse.com
TALKING BACK to restraining orders 
As I’ve mentioned before, I think a lot of the restraining order process can be deterred if individuals are forced to bring money to the table in some way when applying for a restraining order. I understand there may be victims of physical abuse who will seek a restraining order rather than involving the police and/or district attorney for the criminal prosecution of an individual. Regardless, however, there are times when there is the allegation of a clear and imminent danger when in reality there is no real threat or real danger. And I define a true threat where willful intent exists (an individual holds a lack of inhibitions). And in that an individual actually lacks inhibitions and is a true threat, it’s fair enough to say that a protective order is little less than a tool of harassment or a legal proceeding conducted in an attempt to intimidate an individual. Furthermore, the legal harassment and/or legal intimidation by a petitioner could just as well anger and annoy a respondent into becoming a real threat.
One might assume that only the respondent would know whether or not he or she is a true threat. Because of the above listed issues, I believe that it’s adequate that petitioners are forced to put money forward in seeking the restraining order. In that an individual is attempting to escape a situation and obtain a restraining order for his or her safety with a lack of ability to put money forward, I believe that the petitioner should agree to bring forth money at a later date (perhaps six months) after filing the petition; and if the money is not later paid, then the petitioner faces incarceration and a potential conviction. There are plenty of social benefits these days for individuals to acquire money, various social programs, and so I do not think it is impossible for an individual to go about paying $100 to $200 six months later as a filing fee. However, it will act as a deterrent from an individual taking a speculative issue to court.
LikeLike
I do not doubt that a petitioner could attempt to bring evidence, such as filed job applications and job denials, in order to show that he or she is unable to pay the debt. The government needs to crack down on people filing frivolous restraining orders.
LikeLike
That’s an excellent point. If money were required of restraining order applicants AND monetary subsidies were denied to state courts and police districts by the federal government, plaintiffs would have something to lose by making false allegations, and the courts would have nothing to gain by indulging false allegations.
Presently false accusers have nothing to lose and everything to gain by lying, and the courts profit by issuing restraining orders and therefore have no motive to be discerning.
LikeLike