My fiance is asking the courts to grant him a restraining order a child abduction prevention order and supervised visits for me at my own expense. He states that he is in fear for his life and he scared that I will kidnap my child. I wrote him a message on facebook 10/12/2012 stating that I was leaving and going to san diego and I wouldn't care if he never saw our twins again. I was not serious, I was mad as hell. So now 1 month later he is asking the Judge for these special orders stating that its a emergency. Is there a statue limitation in CA Famil law that does not allow this?
Divorce / Separation Lawyer
No, there is no statute of limitations on the filing if a restraining order. But the question is more, with the passage of time, is there an emergency which gives rise to the need for a restraining or emergency order. If visits have continued with no issue, then maybe the emergency has dissipated. It would be beneficial for you to have a good local family law attorney represent you in this. Good luck!
7 lawyers agree
Divorce / Separation Lawyer
The purposes of these types of orders are to protect individuals from imminent harm and if there is no imminent harm it is unlikely that the court would grant the request. Therefore, technically speaking, there is no statute of limitations on these application or requests but the time of the alleged incident has a direct relationship with whether a court is likely to grant the request.
None of the information on this site constitutes legal advice. It is an ad for attorney services. The attorneys at DeDecker & Meltzer are licensed attorneys in the state of California. The information is intended to be general in nature as there are many laws and regulations not mentioned on this site that may apply to your situation. No attorney-client relationship is created between you and the Law Office of DeDecker & Meltzer unless a signed written fee agreement exists. You should not rely or act upon the information provided on this site without seeking the advice from an attorney.
Child Custody Lawyer
There is no statue of limitations. The court will look at the facts and determine if there is a need for a restraining order. As stated by others restraining orders are to protect those in imminent harm. From the facts you have given I do not see a threat of harm to your fiance. What you wrote on Facebook by itself is probably not enough to get a child abduction order. I am a link to Family Code 3048 which list the factors the courts look at regarding abduction
Note this answer does not constitute legal advice, and should not be relied on. Each situation is fact specific and court specific, and it is not possible to evaluate a legal problem without a comprehensive consultation and review of all the facts and court pleadings filed in the case. This answer does not create an attorney-client relationship
Family Law Attorney
Although there is no statute of limitations for filing a protective order. The court limits what it defines as "Recent". For DV cases the petitioning party has to prove there was "Recent Abuse". The code section (Family Code 6300, etc....) does not provide a specific time frame to define recent. As this is determined on a case by case basis. However, the longer someone waits, the court is typically less inclined to grant an order because the need to protect may no longer be present. Here in Alameda County (Northern California) most Judges are less inclined to grant a temporary restraining order for cases that are greater than 3 months. Again, there is no specific time limit as this is considered on a case by case basis.
All the best to you.
Unless contracted with this attorney, communication here does not established an attorney-client relationship. The information given by me is not legal advice. You should not and may not rely on anything on this website as legal advice. I am not establishing an attorney-client relationship with you. I am providing only research, resources and information only for you to be informed and educated about your particular needs and my answer is limited to the facts as you have presented them.
1 lawyer agrees