Domestic Violence Restraining Order Process

[bct1965]

Jurisdiction

California

I have a question on this topic. I had a restraining order placed against me and the, I assume, normal process is for the Order to Show Cause, where the petitioner is allowed to make their case and the respondent is not permitted to challenge or even cross-examine the petitioner.
Two part question here: If a restrained person violated the order, can the fact that no confrontation and cross-examination of the complainant had been allowed and that any enforcement or prosecution would be an unfair action?
The other question: Since the restraining order was issued, my employment has suffered. As a consultant in the IT industry, offers would be made, pending a background investigation. Once the investigation had completed, the offers were withdrawn. Isn't it a protected right under the due process clause "Life" and "Liberty" to be employed, in a field of your own choosing of the 5th and 14th Amendments?
I am contemplating filing an appeal because, deprivation of due process negates the subject matter jurisdiction of the court and as such, the order is void. Not voidable but simply void.

Am I right, wrong, partially of both?

Any thoughts

I have a question on this topic. I had a restraining order placed against me and the, I assume, normal process is for the Order to Show Cause, where the petitioner is allowed to make their case and the respondent is not permitted to challenge or even cross-examine the petitioner.
Two part question here: If a restrained person violated the order, can the fact that no confrontation and cross-examination of the complainant had been allowed and that any enforcement or prosecution would be an unfair action?
The other question: Since the restraining order was issued, my employment has suffered. As a consultant in the IT industry, offers would be made, pending a background investigation. Once the investigation had completed, the offers were withdrawn. Isn't it a protected right under the due process clause "Life" and "Liberty" to be employed, in a field of your own choosing of the 5th and 14th Amendments?
I am contemplating filing an appeal because, deprivation of due process negates the subject matter jurisdiction of the court and as such, the order is void. Not voidable but simply void.

Am I right, wrong, partially of both?

Any thoughts

 

[army judge]

Your logic is flawed, and if you proceed, you'll be slapped down again.

The time to defend any retraining order, or order of protection is at the time it's initially sought.

Heck, you can avoid these silly court battles by accepting the wishes of others.

Just as rape advocates have tried to teach the planet, NO means NO.

STOP means STOP, LEAVE ME ALONE means LEAVE ME ALONE, and GO AWAY means GO AWAY!!!

Only in very rare cases will these orders be overturned. Society wishes to insure that the person bringing such actions is safe from further physical harm, or intrusion into their lives.

If you failed to argue against the initial proceeding, you have a limited time to appeal the verdict adverse to your interests. The appeals window s very narrow, as are the issues which the appellate court is allowed to hear.

Your CA courts explain the four types of these riders in your state:

Restraining Orders - abuse_selfhelp

Before you decide whether to appeal, consider this.

Theroleofan appellate court is not to retry the facts of the case, to take additional evidence, or to reweigh the credibility of witnesses. Rather, this Court reviews the record created in the superior court to determine if a legal error occurred in the superior court. The superior court's decision is presumed correct, and will be reversed only if you can overcome that presumption by demonstrating that (1) legal error was committed and (2) the error has likely made a difference in the outcome of the case (so-called "prejudicial error"). In other words, you must demonstrate that a decision was not just legally wrong but that the error caused the proceedings to be unfair to you. As a general rule, an erroneous ruling in the superior court must also have been subject to a timely objection. This means that you or your attorney must have made a specific objection during the superior court proceedings to preserve the issue for appeal. These and other factors mean that only about 19 percent of civil appeals result in a reversal, whether filed by an attorney or an unrepresented appellant.

Some discussions of similar appeals:

Can a permanent restraining order be appealed in california - Avvo.com

You have THIRTY days in order to file a timely appeal. The time is set by state statute.


The Superior Court of California - County of Orange

A very good tutorial on appealing a restraining order:

Addressing the Judge: What to Expect at a Restraining Order Appeals Hearing…and What Not To

My last comment.
The best offense is a great defense.
In cases of restraining orders, stop when asked.
Don't be a pest.
We all have choices.
We should respect the choices of others.
If someone wants you to stay away from them, honor that request.
To do otherwise will often lead you to a place of great remorse.

 

[bct1965]

Thank you for your comments, although some of them have nothing to do with the case. Abuse of any kind, physical, emotional, psychological, domicile, economic you name it, is wrong.

No abuse was claimed. She claimed that I was frustrated when changing a diaper which is so far from the truth it isn't even funny.

So, I know what "GO AWAY" means and I provided that very solution.

I feel as though the judge allowed someone that is not an expert, giving their opinions as statements of facts not in evidence. I wasn't even acknowledged with the objection.

So, you tell me, is there a predisposition to perceive someone as guilty before having heard both parties?

Not every restrained person is rightfully so. Fraud and abuse of the restraining orders is real and does exist.

The problem is that since the order, I have not been able to get employment as the background investigations return, the offers are withdrawn. My right to due process "Liberty" cause has been denied.

All I am asking is to have the right to cross-examine, either directly or through court personnel. Why is trying to get the rights of the people reinstated and enforced to ensure a fair, impartial and justified process a source for people to attack someone they know nothing about?

Would the order had been issued if I were provided the opportunity to cross-examine, we'll never know. What I do know is that I wasn't frustrated, not even slightly, when dealing with our daughter, changing her diaper and talking to her as we both went to sleep.

What I also know is that our daughter is to return from China in short time.
Her mother (the ex) has been disbarred (did I mention she was an attorney) and no longer eligible to practice law in California.
Lastly, because of the order, my ability to be employed in the career I had held for more than 20 years, in the field of my choosing has been damaged.

Our daughter will need at least one of her parents to provide support and to get her all the things that she wants and needs.

So, anyone else who wishes to vent and cast me as someone that I most definitely am not, save your time and the forums resources by not responding.

If you have sound input, advice or know of a resource that might provide assistance, and can actually answer the questions without attacks, then please let me and others know.

What options does a person in this situation have?

 

[army judge]

Thank you for your comments, although some of them have nothing to do with the case. Abuse of any kind, physical, emotional, psychological, domicile, economic you name it, is wrong.

No abuse was claimed. She claimed that I was frustrated when changing a diaper which is so far from the truth it isn't even funny.

So, I know what "GO AWAY" means and I provided that very solution.

I feel as though the judge allowed someone that is not an expert, giving their opinions as statements of facts not in evidence. I wasn't even acknowledged with the objection.

So, you tell me, is there a predisposition to perceive someone as guilty before having heard both parties?

Not every restrained person is rightfully so. Fraud and abuse of the restraining orders is real and does exist.

The problem is that since the order, I have not been able to get employment as the background investigations return, the offers are withdrawn. My right to due process "Liberty" cause has been denied.

All I am asking is to have the right to cross-examine, either directly or through court personnel. Why is trying to get the rights of the people reinstated and enforced to ensure a fair, impartial and justified process a source for people to attack someone they know nothing about?

Would the order had been issued if I were provided the opportunity to cross-examine, we'll never know. What I do know is that I wasn't frustrated, not even slightly, when dealing with our daughter, changing her diaper and talking to her as we both went to sleep.

What I also know is that our daughter is to return from China in short time.
Her mother (the ex) has been disbarred (did I mention she was an attorney) and no longer eligible to practice law in California.
Lastly, because of the order, my ability to be employed in the career I had held for more than 20 years, in the field of my choosing has been damaged.

Our daughter will need at least one of her parents to provide support and to get her all the things that she wants and needs.

So, anyone else who wishes to vent and cast me as someone that I most definitely am not, save your time and the forums resources by not responding.

If you have sound input, advice or know of a resource that might provide assistance, and can actually answer the questions without attacks, then please let me and others know.

What options does a person in this situation have?

I gave you your options.
Anyone who has been adjudicated under the provisions of a restraining order in CA has 30 days to seek appellate relief.

If you read the information I posted about appellate relief, it'll be apparent that an appeal isn't to retry the case.

You are narrowly restrained in any appellate effort.

As to why you are under the restriction you claim to be onerous, I don't care.

The specific reason for your impediment matters not to me.

It would appear the 30 day statutory period in which one can seek leave to appeal an adverse finding regarding one of the four types of restraining orders in CA has elapsed.

If that's true, you have no appellate relief available to you, rather you have no mechanism to seek any such appellate relief.

In a legal sense, the law considers the issue to be at rest, as in res judicata.

It would be in your continued best interests to obey the order completely.

As far as the other party's profession, that is legally irrelevant.