David Siegel: Let’s talk about some of the consequences when an order is violated. So somewhat down the road here, within this window of time, there’s another either threat or action that violates what the order prohibits. What happens in that case?
Jesse Barrientes: So if we’re talking about an order of protection and we haven’t done a mutual restraining order, we do the order of protection and it gets violated, then that’s an arrestable offense. Let’s say that there’s an order of protection against you and you’re not supposed to be at the house. You go to the house, knock on the door – that’s a violation. Even contacting somebody on the telephone. It depends. Sometimes they modify the provisions and the restrictions in the order of protection to allow for visitation. So sometimes a judge will enter an order of protection but will not find that the child is a protected party and will modify it just so that visitation can be effected.
David Siegel: Well, this arrestable offense – who enforces that? Does the petitioner go back into court, in front of the same judge, or does she just pick up the phone, call 911 and say, “Look, I’ve got an order of protection. He’s at my door. I want him picked up.”
Jesse Barrientes: You pick up the phone and you call 911.
David Siegel: Okay. Let’s talk about another situation, in which someone has an order of protection issued against them. Say it’s the two-year, plenary order, and all of a sudden, in that window of time period, the couple is kind of, not reconciling, but they’re communicating, and the communication is being instigated from the petitioner who has the order of protection. What should the respondent do in that case, because obviously they’re communicating, it’s being instigated by the petitioner. They’re kind of reconciling to a certain extent but yet there is this order of protection that they’re one snap fight away from the petitioner picking up the phone and saying, “He’s violating the order of protection.”
Jesse Barrientes: You know what I’m going to say, Dave, because you know me. It’s a violation of the order of protection. Don’t do it. Don’t do it. Don’t do it. Sometimes the petitioner is trying to lull that other person into a false sense of security in order to put the whammy on them.
David Siegel: But we’re human here.
Jesse Barrientes: Of course we’re human.
David Siegel: She’s calling him.
Jesse Barrientes: Right.
David Siegel: They’re getting together.
Jesse Barrientes: She’s tugging at the heartstrings.
David Siegel: They’re going out to eat.
Jesse Barrientes: Right.
David Siegel: They’re playing with the kids. Whatever it might be, there’s still this underlying order of protection that says “no contact.”
Jesse Barrientes: It’s a violation and if she called the police, he’s going to jail. Now, it doesn’t matter because the order of protection prohibits this and he has violated it. The judge may take some consideration, but generally I think it is what it is.
David Siegel: What should he do?
Jesse Barrientes: What he should do is he should go to his Joliet lawyer, and he should have his lawyer file a motion to modify.
David Siegel: He’s indigent.
Jesse Barrientes: Well, then he could go to the court and try to do a pro se motion, if the parties are in agreement, and they could advise the court that, “Hey, we’re trying to reconcile. I don’t want him over here overnight, but we want to try to reconcile.” See, judges – they’re doing their job with respect to the divorces, but if a family can reconcile, that’s a wonderful, beautiful thing. And so I believe – again, each situation is different – that the judges are going to allow that to happen, if it’s at all possible and if it’s in the best interest, based upon the circumstances of the specific situation.
David Siegel: I think parties are reluctant to go back into court, whether it be for money reasons or otherwise, and they live the way they’re living, with that underlying order hanging in the balance, and they just hope against hope that it doesn’t erupt to a situation where it could be criminal.