The title of this post is a search term that led someone here, presumably a man. Women who’ve been lied about wonder the same thing.
The simple answer to the question is there’s nothing in the law that says a judge can’t award a restraining order to a liar. It’s not illegal.
We think of judges as arbiters of the truth who are ethically bound to heed the facts and ferret out falsehoods, but state restraining order statutes just leave it up to them to determine what the “appropriate” course is, in other words, what to call “the truth” (or what to call the most urgent or significant facts).
Restraining order defendants and witnesses sometimes report that they have “piles of evidence” that prove allegations are false and want to know how to effectively bring it to the court’s attention.
What they naturally fail to appreciate is that it’s not against the law for judges to ignore that evidence. Since it’s not against the law, and since the law licenses judges to rule according to their feelings, judicial ethics commissions don’t concern themselves, and appellate judges may have no legal basis for overturning iffy rulings.
Unless judges act contrary to the law or outside of their jurisdiction, whatever they want to conclude goes.
Restraining order laws don’t say a restraining order petition must be rejected in the presence of contradictory facts or in the absence of verifiable evidence. They don’t, in fact, acknowledge false motives for applying for restraining orders exist. They may even explicitly and prejudicially call petitioners “victims” and defendants “abusers.”
The standard applied to restraining order rulings is discretionary: whatever a judge wants to do, s/he can—within the law. That means s/he can approve a restraining order on an extravagantly preposterous basis or on none at all. That means s/he can kick someone out of his or her residence, award custody of children to his or her accuser, deny him or her the right to possess firearms, and even require that a falsely accused person pay court costs and spousal and child support.
All of this is authorized by the law, and the letter of the law is the only thing a judge is answerable to. A judge may freely interpret facts as s/he “deems fit.”
As soon as someone signs a restraining order and submits it to the court, a judge can do as s/he chooses. The “truth” of the matter is whatever the judge enters into the record.
Judicial motives for approving restraining orders are many, including self-interest and satisfaction of political expectations, and motives for denying dubious petitions—like integrity, honesty, and decency—are flimsy by contrast.
Copyright © 2014 RestrainingOrderAbuse.com