Articles Posted in Protective Order

Both State and Federal laws apply to the procedures for courts to issue and enforce domestic protective orders that can be issued to prevent a respondent from contacting, threatening, or harassing the petitioner after certain allegations are proven to an acceptable degree. Although federal laws that apply to protective order respondents are enforceable from coast to coast, the existence of a protective order in one state may not be sufficient for a similar order to enter in another state. The Texas Supreme Court recently published an opinion that declined a Texas woman’s request to enter a protective order against her ex-lover, who resided in Massachusetts.

According to the facts discussed in the recently published opinion, the Petitioner had been granted a protective order in Massachusetts after the Respondent made credible threats of abuse and violence. After moving to Texas, she requested a Texas district court enter a similar order to protect her from the Respondent while under Texas jurisdiction. The Respondent argued that the Texas court had no jurisdiction over him to enter such an order, and after conflicting rulings, the appeal made its way to the highest civil court in Texas. The Court emphasized that for Texas courts to assert personal jurisdiction, the defendant must have “minimum contacts’ with Texas that are purposeful and not merely random or incidental. This ensures that the defendant has availed themselves of the privileges of conducting activities within Texas, thereby invoking the benefits and protections of its laws. In this case, the Respondent, a Massachusetts resident, had no contacts with Texas related to the Petitioner’s allegations, which all occurred in Massachusetts. The absence of such contacts made it clear that Texas could not constitutionally exercise jurisdiction over the Respondent, highlighting the necessity for jurisdictional connections to the forum state in matters involving protective orders.

The opinion helps demonstrate the importance of understanding and adhering to jurisdictional requirements when dealing with cases of domestic violence and protective orders. The court’s decision to vacate the protective order due to lack of personal jurisdiction demonstrates that even serious allegations of domestic abuse must meet specific legal criteria related to the court’s power to adjudicate. It also illustrates the procedural protections afforded to individuals who are not residents of the forum state, ensuring that they are not subjected to legal proceedings in a state with which they have no meaningful connection. This reinforces the need for precise legal navigation when pursuing protective orders across state lines, as failing to meet jurisdictional standards can result in the dismissal of the case.

Texas courts have the authority to enter protective orders that prevent a potentially dangerous or abusive domestic relation from contacting or harassing the protected party. If a protective order is entered in a scenario where the two parties to the order share one or more children, the terms of the order can complicate the parties’ relationships with their children.

Specifically, when the protected party has custody of the children, it can be difficult for the responding party to have a meaningful relationship with their children while the order is in effect. Many protective orders have the effect of inhibiting the parent-child relationship between the responding party and their child, however, it is possible to fight back against such provisions in a protective order. The Texas Court of Appeals recently addressed an appellant’s request to modify a protective order that prevented him from seeing his children.

According to the facts discussed in the appellate opinion, the parties to the case share a child together. In March of 2021, the mother filed a request for a protective order. She alleged, among other things, that the father was violent towards her in front of the children, and also sexually assaulted her. Based on the court’s understanding of the evidence before it, the protective order was granted. One provision of the order prevented the father from attending or going near any of their child’s extracurricular activities. If the father violated this order, he could be sent to jail and face other permanent consequences.