States Permitting Or Prohibiting Mutual July respondent in the same action.

Similar documents
State Statutory Provisions Addressing Mutual Protection Orders

Elder Financial Abuse and State Mandatory Reporting Laws for Financial Institutions Prepared by CUNA s State Government Affairs

Laws Governing Data Security and Privacy U.S. Jurisdictions at a Glance UPDATED MARCH 30, 2015

Survey of State Laws on Credit Unions Incidental Powers

Statutes of Limitations for the 50 States (and the District of Columbia)

States Adopt Emancipation Day Deadline for Individual Returns; Some Opt Against Allowing Delay for Corporate Returns in 2012

Name Change Laws. Current as of February 23, 2017

Section 4. Table of State Court Authorities Governing Judicial Adjuncts and Comparison Between State Rules and Fed. R. Civ. P. 53

CA CALIFORNIA. Ala. Code 10-2B (2009) [Transferred, effective January 1, 2011, to 10A ] No monetary penalties listed.

Accountability-Sanctions

Laws Governing Data Security and Privacy U.S. Jurisdictions at a Glance

APPENDIX C STATE UNIFORM TRUST CODE STATUTES

APPENDIX D STATE PERPETUITIES STATUTES

State Prescription Monitoring Program Statutes and Regulations List

STATUTES OF REPOSE. Presented by 2-10 Home Buyers Warranty on behalf of the National Association of Home Builders.

Survey of State Civil Shoplifting Statutes

WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION

EXCEPTIONS: WHAT IS ADMISSIBLE?

National State Law Survey: Expungement and Vacatur Laws 1

Governance State Boards/Chiefs/Agencies

Page 1 of 5. Appendix A.

H.R and the Protection of State Conscience Rights for Pro-Life Healthcare Workers. November 4, 2009 * * * * *

National State Law Survey: Mistake of Age Defense 1

State P3 Legislation Matrix 1

The Victim Rights Law Center thanks Catherine Cambridge for her research assistance.

Teacher Tenure: Teacher Due Process Rights to Continued Employment

Time Off To Vote State-by-State

State By State Survey:

State-by-State Lien Matrix

REPORTS AND REFERRALS TO LAW ENFORCEMENT: PROVISIONS AND CITATIONS IN ADULT PROTECTIVE SERVICES LAWS, BY STATE

Authorizing Automated Vehicle Platooning

State Statutory Authority for Restoration of Rights in Termination of Adult Guardianship

ANIMAL CRUELTY STATE LAW SUMMARY CHART: Court-Ordered Programs for Animal Cruelty Offenses

Employee must be. provide reasonable notice (Ala. Code 1975, ).

STATE PRESCRIPTION MONITORING STATUTES AND REGULATIONS LIST

If you have questions, please or call

INSTITUTE of PUBLIC POLICY

UNIFORM NOTICE OF REGULATION A TIER 2 OFFERING Pursuant to Section 18(b)(3), (b)(4), and/or (c)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933

If it hasn t happened already, at some point

Electronic Notarization

DEFINED TIMEFRAMES FOR RATE CASES (i.e., suspension period)

You are working on the discovery plan for

THE 2010 AMENDMENTS TO UCC ARTICLE 9

State Data Breach Laws

State Protection Order Durations Matrix Revised 2015

THE PROCESS TO RENEW A JUDGMENT SHOULD BEGIN 6-8 MONTHS PRIOR TO THE DEADLINE

PERMISSIBILITY OF ELECTRONIC VOTING IN THE UNITED STATES. Member Electronic Vote/ . Alabama No No Yes No. Alaska No No No No

STATE STANDARDS FOR EMERGENCY EVALUATION

2016 Voter Registration Deadlines by State

Registered Agents. Question by: Kristyne Tanaka. Date: 27 October 2010

Matthew Miller, Bureau of Legislative Research

Right to Try: It s More Complicated Than You Think

Appendix 6 Right of Publicity

Rhoads Online State Appointment Rules Handy Guide

WYOMING POPULATION DECLINED SLIGHTLY

ACCESS TO STATE GOVERNMENT 1. Web Pages for State Laws, State Rules and State Departments of Health

State Trial Courts with Incidental Appellate Jurisdiction, 2010

State Law Guide UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS FOR DOMESTIC & SEXUAL VIOLENCE SURVIVORS

TABLE OF CONTENTS. Introduction. Identifying the Importance of ID. Overview. Policy Recommendations. Conclusion. Summary of Findings

Case 3:15-md CRB Document 4700 Filed 01/29/18 Page 1 of 5

CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE/COMPARATIVE FAULT LAWS IN ALL 5O STATES

Relationship Between Adult and Minor Guardianship Statutes

We re Paying Dearly for Bush s Tax Cuts Study Shows Burdens by State from Bush s $87-Billion-Every-51-Days Borrowing Binge

2016 us election results

MEMORANDUM JUDGES SERVING AS ARBITRATORS AND MEDIATORS

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, guilty pleas in 1996 accounted for 91

Effect of Nonpayment

RESTORATION IN ADULT GUARDIANSHIPS (STATUTES)

Immigrant Caregivers:

National State Law Survey: Statute of Limitations 1

Limitations on Contributions to Political Committees

Nos , IN THE Supreme Court of the United States. DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION, ET AL., Petitioners, v.

Appendix Y: States with Rules Identical to FRCP Draft. By: Tarja Cajudo and Leslye E. Orloff. February 8, 2018

ACTION: Notice announcing addresses for summons and complaints. SUMMARY: Our Office of the General Counsel (OGC) is responsible for processing

2008 Changes to the Constitution of International Union UNITED STEELWORKERS

Chart 12.7: State Appellate Court Divisions (Cross-reference ALWD Rule 12.6(b)(2))

State UCC Fraudulent Filing Statutes & Rules Compiled by Paul Hodnefield, Corporation Service Company August 3, 2015

CRS Report for Congress

The remaining legislative bodies have guides that help determine bill assignments. Table shows the criteria used to refer bills.

STATE LAWS SUMMARY: CHILD LABOR CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS BY STATE

Exhibit A. Anti-Advance Waiver Of Lien Rights Statutes in the 50 States and DC

Incorporation CHAPTER 2

MEMORANDUM SUMMARY NATIONAL OVERVIEW. Research Methodology:

Restitution and Asset Forfeiture: A Focus on Human Trafficking Current as of April 2014

NOTICE TO MEMBERS No January 2, 2018

Campaign Finance E-Filing Systems by State WHAT IS REQUIRED? WHO MUST E-FILE? Candidates (Annually, Monthly, Weekly, Daily).

New Population Estimates Show Slight Changes For 2010 Congressional Apportionment, With A Number of States Sitting Close to the Edge

Notice N HCFB-1. March 25, Subject: FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAY PROGRAM OBLIGATION AUTHORITY FISCAL YEAR (FY) Classification Code

Table 1. Comparison of Creditor s Rights Provisions Of the Uniform LP Act and the Uniform LLC Act

Class Actions and the Refund of Unconstitutional Taxes. Revenue Laws Study Committee Trina Griffin, Research Division April 2, 2008

State Campaign Finance Disclosure Requirements Election Cycle

Role of Clinical Evaluation Professionals in Adult Guardianship Proceedings: Survey of State Statutes

State Complaint Information

12B,C: Voting Power and Apportionment

Controlled Substances: Scheduling Authorities, Acts, and Schedules

Horse Soring Legislation

50 State Desktop Reference

28 USC 152. NB: This unofficial compilation of the U.S. Code is current as of Jan. 4, 2012 (see

ADVANCEMENT, JURISDICTION-BY-JURISDICTION

CHAPTER 11 LIABILITY IN EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

Transcription:

Alabama No Code of Ala. 30-5-5 (c)(1) A court may issue mutual protection orders only if a separate petition has been filed by each party. Alaska No Alaska Stat. 18.66.130(b) A court may not grant protective orders against the petitioner and the respondent in the same action. Arizona No Ariz. Rev. Stat. 13-3602(H). The court shall not grant a mutual order of protection. If opposing parties separately file verified petitions for an order of protection, the courts after consultation between the judges involved may consolidate the petitions of the opposing parties for hearing. This does not prohibit a court from issuing cross orders of protection. Arkansas No Ark. Code Ann. 9-15-216. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, a court shall not grant a mutual order of protection to opposing parties. (b) Separate orders of protection restraining each opposing party may only be granted in cases where each party: (1) Has properly filed and served a petition for a protection order; (2) Has committed domestic abuse as defined in 9-15-103; (3) Poses a risk of violence to the other; and (4) Has otherwise satisfied all prerequisites for the type of order and remedies sought. California Yes Cal. Fam. Code 6305. Conditions for issuance of mutual order: The court may not issue a mutual order enjoining the parties from specific acts of abuse unless both parties personally appear and each party presents written evidence of abuse or domestic violence and (b) the court makes detailed findings of fact indicating that both parties acted primarily as aggressors and that neither party acted primarily in self-defense.

Colorado Yes Colo. Rev. Stat. 13-14-102 (18). A court shall not grant a mutual protection order to prevent domestic abuse for the protection of opposing parties unless each party has met his or her burden of proof as described in subsection (4) of this section and the court makes separate and sufficient findings of fact to support the issuance of the mutual protection order to prevent domestic abuse for the protection of opposing parties. No party may waive the requirements set forth in this subsection (18). Connecticut is silent Conn. Gen. Stat. 46b-1 Delaware is silent Del. Code Ann. Tit. 10 1045 District of Columbia is silent D.C. Code 16-1003 Florida No Fla. Stat. 741.30 (i). The court is prohibited from issuing mutual orders of protection. This does not preclude the court from issuing separate injunctions for protection against domestic violence where each party has complied with the provisions of this section. Compliance with the provisions of this section cannot be waived. Georgia No Ga. Code Ann. 19-13-4. (a) The court shall not have the authority to issue or approve mutual protective orders unless the respondent has filed a verified petition as a counter petition no later than three days, not including Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays, prior to the hearing. Hawaii is silent Haw. Rev. Stat. 586-3

Idaho Yes Idaho Code 39-6306 (6) In providing relief under this chapter, the court may realign the designation of the parties as "petitioner" and "respondent" where the court finds that the original petitioner is the abuser and the original respondent is the victim of domestic violence. Illinois No 750 Ill. Comp Stat. 60/215. Mutual orders of protection are prohibited. Correlative separate orders of protection undermine the purposes of this Act and are prohibited unless both parties have properly filed written pleadings, proved past abuse by the other party, given prior written notice to the other, satisfied all prerequisites for the type of order and each remedy granted, and otherwise complied with this Act. In these cases, the court shall hear relevant evidence, make findings, and issue separate orders. The fact that correlative separate orders are issued shall not be a sufficient basis to deny any remedy to petitioner or to prove that the parties are equally at fault or equally endangered. Indiana No Ind. Code 34-26-5-14 (a). Mutual Protection Orders are prohibited. If both parties allege injury, they must do so by separate petitions with separate case numbers. See Ind. Code 34-26-5-2 (c). Iowa No Iowa Code 236.20. Mutual protective orders prohibited. A court in an action under this chapter shall not issue mutual protective orders against the victim and the abuser unless both file a petition requesting a protective order. Kansas No Kan. Stat. Ann. 60-3107. (b) No protection from abuse order shall be entered against the plaintiff unless: (1) The defendant properly files a written cross or counter petition seeking such a protection order; (2) The plaintiff had reasonable notice of the written cross or counter petition by personal service as provided in subsection (d) of K.S.A. 60-3104, and amendments thereto; and (3) The issuing court made specific findings of abuse against both the plaintiff and the defendant and determined that both parties acted primarily as aggressors and neither party acted primarily in selfdefense.

Kentucky No Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. 403.735(2) A court may issue mutual protective orders only if a separate petition is filed by the respondent. Louisiana No La. Rev.Stat. Ann. 46:2133(C). An adult may seek relief under this Part by filing a petition with the court alleging abuse by the defendant. [Court interpreted the statute and held that mutual restraining orders are prohibited because it would violate the Petitioner s procedural due process rights. Bays v. Bays, 779 So.2d 7 (2001)]. Maine No Me. Laws 4007(1-A)(7). The court may not issue a mutual order of protection or restraint. Maryland Yes Md. Code Ann. Fam.Law 4-506 (3) (i) Subject to the provisions of subparagraph (ii) of this paragraph, in cases where both parties file a petition under 4-504 of this subtitle, the judge may issue mutual protective orders if the judge finds by clear and convincing evidence that mutual abuse has occurred. (ii) The judge may issue mutual final protective orders only if the judge makes a detailed finding of fact that: 1. both parties acted primarily as aggressors; and 2. neither party acted primarily in self-defense. Massachusetts Yes Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. Ch. 209A, 3. A court may issue a mutual restraining order or mutual nocontact order pursuant to any abuse prevention action only if the court has made specific written findings of fact. The findings of fact should provide the basis for the court's conclusion that each party has proved, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the other party has abused him or her and that the resulting protective orders are warranted. "The court shall then provide a detailed order, sufficiently specific to apprise any law officer as to which party has violated the order, if the parties are in or appear to be in violation of the order." Id. Mutual restraining orders should never be issued at an ex parte hearing. Each mutual order should refer to the other order by court department, division and case number.

Michigan No Mich. Comp. Laws 600.2950(8) A personal protection order shall not be made mutual. Correlative separate personal protection orders are prohibited unless both parties have properly petitioned the court pursuant to subsection (1). Minnesota No See Fitzgerald v. Fitzgerald, 406 N.W.2d 52 (1987); Mechtel v. Mechtel, 528 N.W.2d 916 (1995). Mississippi is silent Miss. Code. Ann. 93-21-1 Missouri No Mo. Rev. Stat. 455.050(2). Mutual orders of protection are prohibited unless both parties have properly filed written petitions and proper service has been made in accordance with sections 455.010 to 455.085. Montana No Mont. Code. Ann. 40-15-202 (3) The order of protection may not be made mutually effective by the court. The respondent may obtain an order of protection from the petitioner only by filing an application for an order of protection and following the procedure described in this chapter. Nebraska No Neb. Rev. Stat. 42-924.03. A court shall only grant a respondent a protection order if (1) the respondent files a cross or counter petition seeking a protection order and (2) the issuing court makes specific findings of domestic or family abuse against the respondent and determines that the respondent is entitled to a protection order. Nevada is silent Nev. Rev. Stat. 33

New Hampshire No N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. 173:5(V)(a) Mutual orders for relief shall not be granted. VII. (b) Cross orders for relief may be granted only if: (1) The court has made specific findings that each party has committed abuse against the other; and (2) The court cannot determine who is the primary physical aggressor. New Jersey is silent N.J. Stat. Ann. 2C:25-35 New Mexico is silent N.M. Stat. 40-13-3 New York Yes N.Y. Dom. Rel. Law 842: An order of protection under shall set forth reasonable conditions of behavior to be observed for a period not in excess of two years by the petitioner or respondent or for a period not in excess of five years upon (i) a finding by the court on the record of the existence of aggravating circumstances as defined in paragraph (vii) of subdivision (a) of section eight hundred twenty-seven of this article; or (ii) a finding by the court on the record that the conduct alleged in the petition is in violation of a valid order of protection. North Carolina No N.C. Gen. Stat. 50B-3. Protective orders entered, including consent orders, shall not be mutual in nature except where both parties file a claim and the court makes detailed findings of fact indicating that both parties acted as aggressors, that neither party acted primarily in self-defense, and that the right of each party to due process is preserved. North Dakota No N.D. Cent. Code 14-07.1-02(5). A court of competent jurisdiction may issue a dual protection order restricting both parties involved in a domestic violence dispute if each party has commenced an action pursuant to subsection (1-requiring verified application) and the court, after a hearing, has made specific written findings of fact that both parties committed acts of domestic violence and that neither party acted in self-defense. The order must clearly define the responsibilities and restrictions placed upon each party so that a law enforcement officer may readily determine which party has violated the order if a violation is alleged to have occurred

Ohio No Ohio Rev. Code Ann. 3113.31(E)(4) A court may not issue a protection order that requires a petitioner to do or to refrain from doing an act that the court may require a respondent to do or to refrain from doing under division (E)(1)(a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (g), or (h) of this section unless all of the following apply: (a) The respondent files a separate petition for a protection order in accordance with this section Oklahoma No Okla. Stat. Tit. 22 60.4(J). 1. A court shall not issue any mutual protective orders. 2. If both parties allege domestic abuse by the other party, the parties shall do so by separate petitions. The court shall review each petition separately, in an individual or a consolidated hearing and grant or deny each petition on its individual merits. If the court finds cause to grant both motions, the court shall do so by separate orders and with specific findings justifying the issuance of each order. Oregon is silent Or. Rev. Stat. 107.718 Pennsylvania No 23 Pa. Cons. Stat. 6108(c).--Mutual orders of protection shall not be awarded unless both parties have filed timely written petitions, complied with service requirements under section 6106 (relating to commencement of proceedings) and are eligible for protection under this chapter. The court shall make separate findings and, where issuing orders on behalf of both petitioners, enter separate orders. Rhode Island is silent R.I. Gen. Laws 8-8.1 South Carolina Yes S.C. Code Ann. 20-4-60(e). No mutual order of protection may be granted unless the court sets forth findings of fact necessitating the mutual order or unless both parties consent to a mutual order.

South Dakota Yes S.D. Codified Laws 25-10-5.2. No court may, pursuant to the provisions of 25-10-5, issue a mutual order enjoining both petitioner and respondent from committing acts of domestic abuse unless: (1) Both the petitioner and the respondent personally appear; (2) The respondent alleges, under oath, the existence of domestic abuse by stating the specific facts and circumstances of the domestic abuse; (3) The court finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, that domestic abuse has taken place. Texas Unclear Tex. Fam. Code Ann. 4A 85.003. Separate Protective Orders Required. (a) A court that renders separate protective orders that apply to both parties and require both parties to do or refrain from doing acts under Section 85.022 shall render two distinct and separate protective orders in two separate documents that reflect the appropriate conditions for each party.(b) A court that renders protective orders that apply to both parties and require both parties to do or refrain from doing acts under Section 85.022 shall render the protective orders in two separate documents. The court shall provide one of the documents to the applicant and the other document to the respondent.(c) A court may not render one protective order under Section 85.022 that applies to both parties. Utah No Utah Code Ann. 30-6-4.5 (1). A court may not grant a mutual order or mutual orders for protection to opposing parties, unless each party: (a) has filed an independent petition against the other for a protective order, and both petitions have been served; (b) makes a showing at a due process protective order hearing of abuse or domestic violence committed by the other party; and (c) demonstrates the abuse or domestic violence did not occur in self-defense. (2) If the court issues mutual protective orders, the circumstances justifying those orders shall be documented in the case file. Vermont is silent Vt. Stat. Ann. Tit. 12, 1001

Virginia is silent Va. Code Ann. 16.1 Washington Yes, but only a temporary order Wash. Rev. Code 26.50.060(4). In providing relief under this chapter, the court may realign the designation of the parties as "petitioner" and "respondent" where the court finds that the original petitioner is the abuser and the original respondent is the victim of domestic violence and may issue an ex parte temporary order for protection in accordance with RCW 26.50.070 on behalf of the victim until the victim is able to prepare a petition for an order for protection in accordance with RCW 26.50.030. West Virginia No W. Va. Code 48-27-507. Mutual protective orders are prohibited unless both parties have filed a petition under and have proven the allegations of domestic violence by a preponderance of the evidence. This shall not prevent other persons, including the respondent, from filing a separate petition. The court may consolidate two or more petitions if he or she determines that consolidation will further the interest of justice and judicial economy. The court shall enter a separate order for each petition filed. Wisconsin No Wis. Stat. 813.12 (4(a))(3(b)). The judge or circuit court commissioner may enter an injunction only against the respondent named in the petition. No injunction may be issued under this subsection under the same case number against the person petitioning for the injunction. Wyoming No Wyo. Stat. Ann. 35-21-105(h). The court shall not make any provisions of a single order of protection mutually effective. The court may issue a separate order of protection to each party, provided: (i) Each party has filed a separate written petition for an order of protection; and (ii) The court makes specific findings on the record that both parties have committed acts of domestic abuse and that each party is entitled to a separate order of protection.