Orders of protection are powerful tools and once an order of protection is in place, its violation has serious penalties. Orders of protection can be violated even if the protected party consents to the so-called violation. Orders of protection keep people apart who used to live together. Orders of protection are ony available to “any person abused by a family or household member” 750 ILCS 60/201(a)(i) Orders of protection can also be issued for people who used to date. “Family or household member” include “persons who have or have had a dating or engagement relationship.” 750 ILCS 60/103(6) People that used to share some kind of familial or dating relationship often will reach out their former abusers either out of nostalgic desire for reconciliation or as a trap to force the defendant to violate the order of protection. Is it a valid defense to say that an order of protection was not violated because the protected party was, in reality, the person who contacted the defendant? Can a defendant to an order of protection argue that the protected party was not threatened or abused by the defendant but, rather, invited the defendant to contact them…which may, technically, violate the order of protection but not the spirit of the order of protection: to protect? The violation of an order of protection depends on what remedies were granted in the order of protection. When an order of protection is issued different remedies are established that prohibit future contact between the parties. Virtually all orders of protection include a “[p]rohibition of abuse, neglect, or exploitation. Prohibit respondent’s harassment, interference with personal liberty, intimidation of a dependent, physical abuse, or willful deprivation, neglect or exploitation…stalking of the petitioner” 750 ILCS 60/214(a)(1) Answering a petitioner’s phone call or coming over to a petitioner’s house after being invited is hardly “abuse, neglect, exploitation…harassment, etc.” However, most orders of protection additionally prohibit ANY contact. The Illinois Domestic Violence Act allows a court to “[o]rder respondent to stay away from petitioner or any other person protected by the order of protection, or prohibit respondent from entering or remaining present at petitioner’s school, place of employment, or other specified places at times when petitioner is present, or both, if reasonable, given the balance of hardships. Hardships need not be balanced for the court to enter a stay away order or prohibit entry if respondent has no right to enter the premises.” […]
