Because most of the "DV" TROs are requested by females (against males)--- many judges just rubber stamp them, even when there is no proof of any alleged violence TO BEGIN WITH.
An ALLEGATION of "domestic violence" is all that is required. In general, an ALLEGATION of violence does not mean there was any violence, but since the "DV" TROs are not criminal (if you violate the TRO it will be a potential criminal charge) but the TRO itself will be registered on CLETS (see fn#1 below)-- it kind of amounts to it being criminal in effect. "DV" TROs can cause people to NOT be hired in the workplace, even if one was not charged or convicted of any violence in criminal court. * [see **below, for what could happen IF it is found or believed that you DID violate the "DV" TRO--and charges in criminal court transpire....]
The ALLEGATION alone, if not contested, can have huge, long lasting, completely devastating effects in any custody issue, period. Especially if one party has an attorney and the other party does not have an attorney, the one without the attorney may simply give up, and end up losing visitation.
Attorney has seen this happen in many, many cases. Conversely, attorney has seen parents unjustifiably accused by "DV" TROs, and then end up prevailing, but it can take a long time and a lot of work, especially if one has a vindictive ex spouse or partner.
---> //FN#1 re CLETS: restraining order coming from the civil courts is the CLETS restraining order. CLETS is an acronym standing for California Law Enforcement Telecommunication System. A CA CLETS order is a restraining order that is issued by a family law judge, lodged in the CLETS database and allows the police to arrest the abuser if the abuser violates that order.
SO....the best thing to do if accused of any "DV" TRO
is to immediately get legal help so that you
don't go down like a sinking ship
before you even get started.
The last thing most people need is a "DV" TRO on their record, even if they are not guilty of it--- it carries both a stigma (you beat up people or try to hurt them, etc), that you are not fit to watch or babysit children (age of kids will matter but especially babies) and you will be stuck with what is known as supervised visitation which you will likely not be able to afford, or will not want to afford. Further, the wait list is very long unless you plan to use a private agency which is quite expensive.
IF YOU HAVE HAD A "DV" TRO
SLAPPED ON YOU,
CALL ATTORNEY ASAP.
Waiting Will Harm You.
YOU HAVE ALREADY BEEN CHARGED
UNDER THE CALIFORNIA
PENAL CODE, PC273.6
WITH VIOLATING A "DV" TRO..........
CALL ATTORNEY ASAP
Attorney is A LITIGATOR, familiar with representing defendants on DV TRO allegations in criminal court.
Examples (as seen online...)
Defenses
Possible legal defenses apply to a PC 273.6 charge. Some of these include:
A new case, June 2016 was published for CA which indicates that no NEW allegations of DV conduct is required in order to "renew" a DV TRO. Perez v Torres-Hernandez, First Appellate District CA.
*NOTE: Most people violate DV orders by doing something dumb or stupid--but most are not extreme in nature--in other words, they don't use weapons to try and kill you or abduct the kids. However, some defendants will make repeated threats via phone, text, computer---which are counted by the courts. Therefore, sending bad texts, bad emails, and leaving bad notes online (Facebook, etc) is simply stupid. If you have done this, then basically you need to change your behavior. In Butte County, even felons are not necessarily being pulled back into prison--or-- jail, for violating a DV TRO due to the Realignment problem. If you do not know what the Realignment problem is, google it online.
Penalties
If you are convicted of violating a California restraining order, the penalties vary quite a bit depending on
- Whether it's your first or subsequent violation, and
- whether the victim suffered a physical injury.
The penalties may include up to three years in the California state prison for a felony, and up to one year in a county jail for a misdemeanor. In addition, you could face
Attorney herein, in the past, had a client that was ALREADY convicted of PC 273.6-- BECAUSE he took a plea and did not go to trial. Client's ex spouse was (to put it mildly--) a legendary liar. Seriously.
After obtaining the 273.6 plea, the ex wife then subsequently went after another DV TRO for 5 years. (This case is not in Butte County.)
True to form at the trial, the ex wife's showboating attorney paraded around thinking he was Perry Mason.........just awful...........and sure enough, despite the Judge finding that it was extremely close in his decision, (because he was a new family Law Judge in part) Judge gave the ex wife the new TRO anyway. All of the false accusations were repeated and re-hashed. Although Client had no visitation anyway, he slowly did his supervised visitation as per the FCS recommendation. Even now, which is over a year later, the ex wife is still withholding the kids from the father and she even moved to another city. If father sticks with it, he can get unsupervised visits, but so far the ex wife has not even complied with the last court order. This puts a burden on the father to take action and not remain passive.
SO-- if you want or need an attorney that can handle both Family Law issues, and even criminal charges, feel free to call attorney. Attorney does have a track record of recorded wins in cases, this is fact based.
SO-- if you want or need an attorney that can handle both
Family Law issues,
and criminal charges, feel free to call attorney.
IT is also possible to be charged with either cyber-stalking PC 646.9 or Penal Code 653.2 PC indirect cyber-harassment.
Cyber-stalking is the same behavior as ordinary stalking, only committed over the internet or email. In contrast, indirect cyber-harassment consists of posting harmful information about someone on the internet or in an email message, with the intent to incite other people to harass or threaten him/her in person.
Indirect electronic harassment is distinct from “direct electronic harassment” or cyberstalking under Penal Code 646.9 PC. With direct electronic harassment/cyberstalking, the defendant is the one who personally harassed or stalked the victim.3
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.