That link is helpful, as it shows that such restraining orders are (or at least, can be) a set of checkoff-able options on a generic template form. But, there are a lot of options available, including a free-text "Other Orders" section, and we don't know what options were checked off in this particular case.
One of the points under dispute here seems to be this: if A has obtained from the court a restraining order against B, is it legitimate or not for A to travel to a place where B is known to currently be (a place which is *not* B's place of residence or work), for the purpose of forcing B to leave that place? And is B automatically in violation of the order by being at a place where A may later arrive, but hasn't yet arrived?
The generic form does not appear to contain any restrictions against A (the Person to be Protected), but the customized "Other Orders" might.
The party hosts say they have previous experience involving other guests who are at opposite ends of a restraining order, and that that experience informed their decision in this case. But that restraining order may have been very different from this one.
no subject
One of the points under dispute here seems to be this: if A has obtained from the court a restraining order against B, is it legitimate or not for A to travel to a place where B is known to currently be (a place which is *not* B's place of residence or work), for the purpose of forcing B to leave that place? And is B automatically in violation of the order by being at a place where A may later arrive, but hasn't yet arrived?
The generic form does not appear to contain any restrictions against A (the Person to be Protected), but the customized "Other Orders" might.
The party hosts say they have previous experience involving other guests who are at opposite ends of a restraining order, and that that experience informed their decision in this case. But that restraining order may have been very different from this one.