Talk:Restraining order

Injunction

Should this redirect to injunction or be a disambiguation between injunction and protection order? Ferberson (talk) 18:39, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Neutrality

The article does not talk about the history of protection orders or give a lot of information as to why they exist, and instead spends a lot of time seeming to try to prove why they shouldn't exist. Cites some extremely biased sources, such as Joseph Cordell. Paraphrases from a source, "The Wisconsin Coalition Against Domestic Violence uses female pronouns to refer to petitioners and male pronouns to refer to abusers due to the fact that most petitioners are women and most alleged abusers are men." I read the source article and it actually says that most victims are women and most abusers are men, which is concurrent with the majority of research on DV. The word "alleged" was added by the author presumably to water down the facts, as seems to be the case for most of this page. A section called "burden of proof" doesn't even actually say what the burden of proof is for a protection order (preponderance of the evidence), and instead describes it as "low." I do no dispute the statistical analyses that are provided for the discussion of efficacy, except to say there is a significant and credible body of research not presented to show the benefits of protective orders. I hope someone will be willing to revisit this page and balance the information presented. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.55.211.122 (talk) 17:41, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I removed the 'alleged' from the text that specifically cited restraining orders in Wisconsin and California to be more consistent with the references which do indeed refer to actual, not merely alleged, abusers. I agree that much of this article presents the negative side of restraining orders. If you are aware of competing research that presents a different and more positive view of restraining orders, I'd invite you to participate in editing the article to add such research, not merely encouraging others to do so. As for the standard of proof, I will shortly add a brief discussion of the actual standard of proof to that section of the article. What you say is true up to a point: the standard is "preponderance of the evidence" in many states--but definitely not all states--so a bit of discussion is warranted on that point.Dash77 (talk) 21:33, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Restraining order. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.endabusewi.org/sites/default/files/resources/process_for_obtaining_a_restraining_order.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130815044625/http://www.mncourts.gov/district/2/?page=1174 to http://www.mncourts.gov/district/2/?page=1174

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:56, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Senior Seminar

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 January 2024 and 10 June 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Softball1313 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Softball1313 (talk) 18:42, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Information about mutual restraining orders needed

So as to not make it one-sided (to make it not sound as if the alleged victim can do no wrong), there needs to be some information about mutual restraining orders - which may be implemented as two separate restraining orders.

There also needs to be more information about abuse of restraining orders, not only in vexatiously filing them, but also the possibility of the beneficiary of the order weaponizing it to harass the other party (by actively blocking access for the other person from a legitimate location, or intentionally tracking down the person to drive the person out of a place, or chasing after the person). That sort of conduct should result in consequences against the beneficiary, one of which could be a reciprocal restraining order to turn it mutual. ~2026-24993-44 (talk) 19:18, 23 April 2026 (UTC)