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
Date: 2014-07-12 06:27 pm (UTC)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.