Temporary Protective Order (TPO)

Disclaimer:  The following post may contain graphic and/or disturbing language dealing with real issues clients face.  No offense is intended, please feel free to stop here if you think it will bother you.

(This post was prompted by two events which took place on Friday involving two clients.)

Temporary Protective Orders
A temporary protective order (TPO) is a fairly common order issued from a court in any state.  It is colloquially referred to as a "restraining order," since it restrains an "abuser" from harassing the person who requested the order.  In the State of Nevada, TPO's are issued for stalking and harassment, harm to minors, sexual assault, harassment in the workplace, and domestic violence.  It is important to note that in Nevada, only the Family Court may issue a TPO for domestic violence, while Justice Court issues TPO's for other forms of abuse or harassment.

TPO's are fairly straightforward, they are intended to protect people from the above mentioned forms of abuse or harassment temporarily, until both parties can come to some sort of functional relationship again.  In some cases, they even bar contact between the two parties (this is known as a "no-contact" order). 

The penalties for violating a TPO are the same penalties for violating any court order, and include fines and/or possible jail time for contempt of court, and attorney's fees for subjecting the issue at hand to further litigation.  Aside from these legal consequences, violating a TPO may SEVERELY impact the outcome of a trial.  The court takes TPO violations pretty seriously, most likely because some judges consider it incredibly disrespectful to violate a direct order from the court, and see it as you more or less told the court to "piss off."  

Friday's Fiasco(s)
For the purposes of my job, we most often deal with the TPO's issued for domestic violence.  Though it seems like it would be pretty straightforward, there was an issue Friday with g
 etting a TPO for a young woman whose husband: forced her to have intercourse at his will, would throw food and break dishes if a meal wasn't prepared to his liking, and even threatened to kill our client.  The TPO office said that it may not be granted because no actual physical violence occurred.  This bothered me considerably.  Though no actual violence was reported, the description of events not only meets the common law definition of assault, but also the statutory definition set forth in the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS 200.471:  "'Assault' means: 2.) Intentionally placing another person in reasonable apprehension of bodily harm.").  Therefore, although she could file a police report and her husband could be prosecuted by the State, she was told that the TPO was not likely to be granted since no actual 'violence' occurred.  Personally, I think there's something wrong with that.  For one, it meets the legal definition of assault according to the State of Nevada, and secondly, how would the Court know if our client (who obviously witnessed the actions) was placed in "reasonable apprehension of bodily harm?"  Shouldn't a conservative approach be taken, and since a threat of violence exists, the TPO be granted as a precautionary measure?  At any rate, we will know if it was granted sometime early next week, but for the time being the client was advised not to go home, and not to meet her husband anywhere no matter how much he begs.

The second incident involves a client with a degenerative mental disease.  From time to time, this client does not feel like being pestered, and her soon-to-be-ex spouse constantly harasses her and tries to get her to accept an agreement which she has no desire to discuss at any given time.  She has come very close to agreeing to terms which would royally screw her over, and we have had to maintain nearly constant contact to make sure she hasn't signed any documents.  It has gotten to the point where we have advised her to apply for a TPO on the grounds that she is constantly being harassed.  After seeing why the first client would have an issue with her domestic violence TPO, I am somewhat doubtful that this client will get one simply because her spouse keeps trying to force an agreement down her throat.  What makes this instance all the more frustrating is that we have asked his attorney to leave her alone, and do all negotiating through his attorney's office, and our office.  Honestly, I hope she gets her TPO, this way we have time to negotiate terms instead of constantly reject them and constantly be on defense.

Conclusion
 TPO's are pretty easy to understand, however they seem to be an ongoing issue since many people consider these "orders" to be mere recommendations handed down by the court.  Depending on how the judge views a violation, the penalties vary, but violations will almost always have a very negative impact on your case if it goes to trial.  TPO violations not only demonstrate a lack of consideration for a court order, but are also used in trial as evidence to support the claim that you are not a law-abiding person, and your testimony should be taken with a grain of salt.