Protection order to prevent domestic violence
Often, spouses or former spouses come to Home Family Law To request a protection order whose purpose is to separate and distance the couple.
Sometimes these are indeed cases in which the husband or wife resorted to violence, or, God forbid, threatened to resort to violence.
But what happens in the case where a mother requests a protection order on behalf of her children, against their father?
This is what the Family Court dealt with in the context of the proceedings. H”t (Nz) 36635-10-14 R.Z N P.Z.
The legal meaning of a protection order
Restraining orders have two terms that are similar in content but different in context. One is an order to prevent threatening harassment, and the other is an order of protection.
A restraining order is a restraining order that is relevant to relationships between people outside of a family setting. A protection order is also a restraining order, but it is relevant to a family setting. Such as husband and wife, parents and children, and between themselves.
Read more about: Order Removal for threatening harassment
Applying to the court for a protection order in the case in question
The applicant and the respondent have three children together, they do not live together. They maintain visitation arrangements.
In her application, the applicant claimed that during the month of October, on a day when their three children were with their father, he showed them videos indicating that she had beaten them in the past, when they lived together.
The children asked to film the video their father showed them, but in return he took their phones and acted violently and aggressively.
Due to the incident, their children refuse to visit or meet him.
Due to that incident, the mother requested that their father be removed from their children. It is important to note that the mother was not present at the incident.
The father, on the other hand, denied everything attributed to him. He claimed that he did show the children videos, but not violent ones, in order to show his children that he had not left home.
In addition, he claimed that their daughter did indeed ask to take pictures but he asked her not to, but there was no violence in this situation.
The father also described that afterwards he was at a restaurant with his children and they stayed with him for the night. The next day he returned them to their mother’s house without any special incident.
According to the father, this is a false story and an attempt by the mother to divert their children towards him.
It should be noted that the couple has a long-standing dispute regarding the care of the children. This is a family that is being cared for by the welfare officials who accompany them.
Initially, an ex parte protection order was issued, which was valid for seven days.
A review by the Relief Bureau as directed by the court
As part of the procedure, an opinion was requested from a welfare officer, whose dismal findings regarding both parents were dismal:
“The relief review shows that both parents are failing in their parental role, in the sense that they are not sufficiently aware of the children’s developmental emotional needs to be in close contact with both of them on the one hand, but to be distant from the parental conflict. On the other hand, the children’s situation is dire, as the proceedings between the couple affect their emotional state.“This is how the welfare officer summed up her opinion.
In a meeting held with the children, it became clear that they were interested in having contact with their father, but gradually.
Did the court issue a protective order?
The court ruled that there was no need to use the protection order, as this was a family dispute and granting a protection order under these circumstances would only sour the atmosphere and hurt the children’s feelings.
On this issue, the court also relied on the guiding ruling of the Supreme Court.
The ruling states: “It is settled law that a protection order or an order to prevent threatening harassment should not be used to achieve goals other than those laid down in the fundamentals of the law. Granting a protection order is a drastic and harsh measure, and litigants should be discouraged from using this tool unnecessarily.”
The court ruled that the protection order had exhausted itself. First, it was determined that the children were interested in contact with their father, and that this should be allowed, before the dispute arose as to whether there were any manifestations of violence as claimed by the mother.
The court also ruled that the welfare officer’s report “does not include any recommendation regarding future “violent behavior” on behalf of the respondent. The report expresses much greater concern about the continued high intensity of the parental conflict than about the father’s violent behavior toward the children, if any.”
Regarding the violent incident, it was determined that after the incident until this decision was made, the father did not meet the children, so even if it was a low-intensity incident resulting from a fight with his daughter, the father was punished enough and should be allowed gradual meetings with his children as recommended by the welfare officer.
From the Family Court’s ruling, it can be concluded that arguments between parents and children may sometimes lead to fights that may lead to behavior that could be interpreted as violent.
Parents must be careful not to involve children in conflicts. It seems that on a legal level, the court carefully tried to preserve a separate family unit, but one with functional potential.
