Q: My son father has put a order of protection against me he told me that I can not be around him or our son
He told me that I can not pick up my son from school or be near it and I can’t be near him I went to the court and I found out that the protection is against me only not with my son now we have mediation and he violated the contract for me not seeing my son and my son primary home is with me we have joint custody through mediation and he pressured me to do a weekly thing for our son to visit me one week and his dad the other week
A:
There is no question here, but there is much to say about this factual narrative. It is the liberal mind's product of protecting a class of people against violence in the home. Let us review the purposes of domestic violence law.
Originally, men who were violent in the home were evicted by police after a 911 call by the victim woman. Typically, the man was prohibited from coming home by way of an order of protection, and federal money flowed to the state to prosecute the man. Arrests were mandatory and prosecution was no-drop. There were never any hearings about whether to allow the man to maintain his gun, and access to children was strictly limited by way of supervised visitation. The man had to think things over and give in accepting an order of protection for future 911 calls (to regulate his behavior) and agreeing to limit his contact with his children. Thus began lawfare in the U.S.
Judges simply followed this law. Here, the statutory authority created a protected class of litigant where the judge would amplify the litigant's case while diminishing the man's case. Guilt was essentially handed out and orders of protection flowed like water. Protecting the battered woman was more important than any procedural protections due the defendant. Democracy ended for all practical purposes, and the law became a holy pursuit: protect the victim. The first to strike got the protected class status.
However, over the years, men got smart. They started to call cops against their women as apparently the facts indicate here. The mom is the one evicted by cop and the upper hand is held by the man, not the woman. She now faces some diminished level of access to her child, and does not know what hit her especially if it was the man who was hitting her and calling cops.
Otherwise, without a question, we don't have much to respond to. Perhaps this asker requires a lawyer to explain to her what happened and what the chances are of surviving this government assault on her family. The state got paid by the fed, and Americans learned of protected classes in courts.
Justia Ask a Lawyer is a forum for consumers to get answers to basic legal questions. Any information sent through Justia Ask a Lawyer is not secure and is done so on a non-confidential basis only.
The use of this website to ask questions or receive answers does not create an attorney–client relationship between you and Justia, or between you and any attorney who receives your information or responds to your questions, nor is it intended to create such a relationship. Additionally, no responses on this forum constitute legal advice, which must be tailored to the specific circumstances of each case. You should not act upon information provided in Justia Ask a Lawyer without seeking professional counsel from an attorney admitted or authorized to practice in your jurisdiction. Justia assumes no responsibility to any person who relies on information contained on or received through this site and disclaims all liability in respect to such information.
Justia cannot guarantee that the information on this website (including any legal information provided by an attorney through this service) is accurate, complete, or up-to-date. While we intend to make every attempt to keep the information on this site current, the owners of and contributors to this site make no claims, promises or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness or adequacy of the information contained in or linked to from this site.