Also known as: orders of protection · protective order
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
2 senses
A court order issued to safeguard a party or individual from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense during litigation or related proceedings.
A court order issued in family or child-welfare proceedings that sets conditions on conduct, placement, or supervision to protect a child or party.
Each sense below has its own examples, sources, and questions.
A court order issued to safeguard a party or individual from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense during litigation or related proceedings.
Olga O'Neill served discovery requests on Omega Energy seeking ten years of server logs stored on obsolete tapes. Omega Energy moved for a protective order, showing that restoration would cost over four hundred fifty thousand dollars and require specialized vendors. The court considered whether good cause existed to compel production despite the burden.
Oswald Orozco faced charges and his defense sought exculpatory evidence from the prosecutor. The prosecutor moved for a protective order to withhold certain mitigating information known only to the office. The tribunal evaluated whether the order would relieve the disclosure duty under professional conduct rules.
A court order issued in family or child-welfare proceedings that sets conditions on conduct, placement, or supervision to protect a child or party.
Orla O'Malley petitioned to continue foster care placement for a child under agency supervision. The court issued an order of protection setting conditions on the agency's behavior to keep the child with the current foster parent. The order operated as both a continuation of care and a behavioral directive enforceable by the court.
Odette Orozco sought broad document production from Overland Transport in a contract dispute. Overland Transport filed a motion for a protective order after attempting to confer, citing undue expense and duplication. The court assessed whether good cause supported limits on the requested discovery.
3 common questions
The party from whom discovery is sought must demonstrate that the information is not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost. If that showing is made, the requesting party may still obtain the information by demonstrating good cause.
A protective order issued by the tribunal may relieve the prosecutor of the duty to make timely disclosure of evidence that tends to negate guilt or mitigate the offense.
The motion must include a certification that the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with other affected parties to resolve the dispute without court action.
In 1976 appellees consisting of individual foster parents and the Organization of Foster Families for Equality and Reform filed a civil rights class action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. They acted on behalf of themselves and foster children who had resided in their homes for a year or more. They named as defendants various New York State and New York City child welfare officials. The suit sought declaratory and injunctive relief against the pre-removal procedures provided in state statutes and regulations. The District Court appointed independent counsel to represent the foster children to forestall conflicts. It also granted leave to natural mothers to intervene as defendants. The court certified a class of foster parents and children who had lived together for more than one year. A divided three-judge District Court held the existing pre-removal procedures constitutionally defective. It permanently enjoined their enforcement. Four appeals reached the Supreme Court from the New York City officials, New York State officials, independent counsel for the children, and intervening natural mothers. Under New York's foster care system most placements occur through voluntary written agreements. Natural parents and authorized agencies execute these agreements to transfer care and custody of the child to the agency. The agency then places the child in a licensed foster home under a contract allowing either party to terminate at will. Natural parents retain legal guardianship and an obligation to visit and plan for the child's future. Children may also enter foster care by court order following findings of abuse, neglect, or delinquency. When an agency decides to remove a child, state regulations require ten days' written notice to foster parents except in emergencies. Opportunities exist for conference and fair hearing. Additional procedures apply in New York City. Judicial review is available under § 392 after eighteen months. The record showed that the median duration of foster care in New York exceeded four years. Many children experienced multiple placements and limited contact with natural parents.
View caseOphelia O'Brien was subject to a protective supervision order requiring cooperation with social services and therapy after a finding that her child was in need of assistance. The order placed ongoing conditions on her conduct while allowing temporary custody. Violation of those conditions could trigger further court intervention.
Maurice M. was hospitalized at three months old with a fractured left femur and other indications of severe physical abuse. Hospital personnel observed respondent Bouknight shaking Maurice and handling him improperly. This led them to notify the Baltimore City Department of Social Services of suspected child abuse. In February 1987, the Department secured a court order removing Maurice from Bouknight's control and placing him in shelter care. Several months later, the shelter care order was modified to return Maurice to Bouknight temporarily. Following a hearing, the juvenile court declared Maurice a child in need of assistance and placed him under the Department's continuing oversight pursuant to a protective supervision order. The order required Bouknight to cooperate with the Department, continue in therapy, participate in parental aid and training programs, and refrain from physically punishing Maurice. Eight months later, the Department returned to juvenile court fearing for Maurice's safety. BCDSS caseworkers related that Bouknight would not cooperate with them and had in nearly every respect violated the terms of the protective order. On April 20, 1988, the court granted BCDSS' petition to remove Maurice from Bouknight's control for placement in foster care. BCDSS officials also petitioned for judicial relief from Bouknight's failure to produce Maurice or reveal where he could be found. The court issued an order to show cause why Bouknight should not be held in civil contempt for failure to produce the child. Maurice was not produced at subsequent hearings. At a hearing one week later, Bouknight claimed that Maurice was with a relative in Dallas. Investigation revealed that the relative had not seen Maurice. The next day, following another hearing at which Bouknight again declined to produce Maurice, the juvenile court found Bouknight in contempt for failure to produce the child as ordered. The court directed that Bouknight be imprisoned until she purged herself of contempt by either producing Maurice before the court or revealing to the court his exact whereabouts. Bouknight's claim that the contempt order violated the Fifth Amendment was rejected by the juvenile court. The Court of Appeals of Maryland vacated the judgment upholding the contempt order. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
View caseOnyx O'Reilly obtained an order of protection against her former partner requiring him to stay away from her home. Local police declined to enforce the order after a reported violation. The order's effectiveness turned on whether it created an enforceable entitlement to police protection.
Jessica Gonzales obtained a temporary restraining order against her estranged husband in May 1999 in connection with divorce proceedings in a Colorado state court. The order was served on the husband on June 4, 1999. The state trial court modified the terms of the restraining order on June 4, 1999, and made it permanent. The modified order granted the husband limited visitation rights with their three daughters on alternate weekends, for two weeks during the summer, and upon reasonable notice for a mid-week dinner visit. On the evening of June 22, 1999, the husband took the three daughters, ages 10, 9, and 7, from outside the family home without any advance arrangements for visitation that night. Gonzales contacted the Castle Rock Police Department around 7:30 p.m. She showed officers a copy of the restraining order and requested its enforcement and the immediate return of the children. The officers stated there was nothing they could do and advised her to call back if the children did not return by 10:00 p.m. Gonzales made additional calls to the police throughout the night. She called at 8:30 p.m. after speaking with her husband who was at an amusement park in Denver. She called at 10:10 p.m., at midnight, and at 12:10 a.m. when she went to his apartment. Each time she was told to wait or that no immediate action would be taken. When she filed an incident report at the police station around 12:50 a.m., the officer took the report but made no effort to locate the children before going to dinner. At approximately 3:20 a.m. on June 23, 1999, the husband arrived at the police station and opened fire with a semi-automatic handgun. Police shot back, killing him. Inside the cab of his pickup truck, they found the bodies of all three daughters, whom he had already murdered. Gonzales subsequently filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Town of Castle Rock. She alleged that the police department's policy or custom of failing to respond properly to complaints of restraining order violations deprived her of due process. The district court dismissed the complaint. The Tenth Circuit en banc reversed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
View case2 common questions
The court may issue an order of protection that sets reasonable conditions of behavior to be observed for a specified time by a person or agency before the court, including conditions that keep a child with a particular foster parent.
The order may require the custodian to cooperate with social services, continue in therapy, and participate in parental aid and training while the child remains in the home under agency oversight.
…the agency take steps to free the child for adoption. § 392 (7). Moreover, § 392 (8) authorizes the court to issue an "order of protection" which "may set forth reasonable conditions of behavior to be observed for a specified time by a person or agency who is before the court." Thus, the court may order not only that foster…