I am responding to the question only and not to whether or not the question should have been asked.
To clarify, restraining orders do not impose any obligation on the victim. The purpose of a restraining order is to deal with the actions of the perpetrator and not punish the victim. There is no "misusing" the restraining order and there is no "mutual obligation".
One caveat regarding your question above: when a victim is seeking a continuation of the order she or he must prove that there is a continuing need for the order. If the victim is contacting the defendant, than the defendant will surely bring that up as evidence that there is no continuing need.
Please note that there are a myriad of reasons a victim might still need to contact the defendant (e.g. I have no money to feed our kids, our lights are being turned off, someone died; where is the bank account etc.) I think that those are reasonable. Some reasons for contact are less reasonable. Courts take all of that into account.
That being said, any violation of a restraining order is a criminal offense so the prosecutor must prove, as in any criminal offense, that the requisite conditions to the crime are met. That is harder when contact is accidental. It is easier, though, when you can argue that the defendant knew or should have known the victim would be at a location.
One final note, a defendant can get a restraining order modified if there is something the defendant feels he or she must attend (like a wedding of their children). The victim can argue that this would not be safe for him or her and the judge would decide. But the whole argument that the defendant can't do anything is not true: they can go into court and ask the court for permission. This way the victim has notice and make the right decisions for his or her safety.
A final note: restraining orders are only about the safety of the victim.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2014-07-15 03:30 pm (UTC)To clarify, restraining orders do not impose any obligation on the victim. The purpose of a restraining order is to deal with the actions of the perpetrator and not punish the victim. There is no "misusing" the restraining order and there is no "mutual obligation".
One caveat regarding your question above: when a victim is seeking a continuation of the order she or he must prove that there is a continuing need for the order. If the victim is contacting the defendant, than the defendant will surely bring that up as evidence that there is no continuing need.
Please note that there are a myriad of reasons a victim might still need to contact the defendant (e.g. I have no money to feed our kids, our lights are being turned off, someone died; where is the bank account etc.) I think that those are reasonable. Some reasons for contact are less reasonable. Courts take all of that into account.
That being said, any violation of a restraining order is a criminal offense so the prosecutor must prove, as in any criminal offense, that the requisite conditions to the crime are met. That is harder when contact is accidental. It is easier, though, when you can argue that the defendant knew or should have known the victim would be at a location.
One final note, a defendant can get a restraining order modified if there is something the defendant feels he or she must attend (like a wedding of their children). The victim can argue that this would not be safe for him or her and the judge would decide. But the whole argument that the defendant can't do anything is not true: they can go into court and ask the court for permission. This way the victim has notice and make the right decisions for his or her safety.
A final note: restraining orders are only about the safety of the victim.