When Is it OK to Break a No-Contact Order? Location: Indiana, USA Background: A friend of mine has a temporary no-contact order placed against him for his girlfriend. His girlfriend didn't want the order, but the state placed the order anyway. She is still allowed to message him. Being a good egg, he didn't message her back and has followed the law waiting for his pre-trial agreement to run out and the order to lift. Concern: She sent him pictures - empty bottles of vodka and her bleeding wrists - and some messages something to the effect of I hate my ****ing life. I just want to end it. This is a pattern of hers that really messes with him (my friend) so he broke the order to console her, then she proceeded to tell other people (her friends and family) that he broke the order. Question: Does the law or judge ever make exceptions for events such as this? A deliberate breaking of a court order, but with good intentions? Or would he be facing the same punishments if word makes it back around to the court? Edit: I understand Necessity in Criminal Law may come into play here, but I'm unsure if this is a strong enough argument.
Does the law or judge ever make exceptions for events such as this? From a legal standpoint, your friend is at high risk of being found in contempt and thus be sentenced to imprisonment. Your friend should have called 911 rather than violate the protection order under pretext of consoling her. Asking from the standpoint of whether judges ever do this or that is pointless. The answer would be &quot;yes, they make exceptions&quot; even in scenarios which are plain aberrant. However, a judge's departure of the law quite often is not a reliable standpoint for understanding the law, but the result of his/her ineptitude and unfitness for judicial office.
You seem to have put a lot of thought into this - which is good. However, the short answer is: There is no legal solution. To address your points: And legally, my future wife has the right to divorce me even if I did nothing wrong (no-fault). Yes (at least in most jurisdictions). And then, according to the US Census Bureau [1], mothers usually get primary custody (unless she is on drugs or abusive, which she isn't). And according to the Indiana Parenting Guidelines [2], babies only get one night per week with the non-custodial parent. And even as a teenager, only alternating weekends. Here, it depends. What you describe is indeed what happens often, but not always. Rules vary a lot, and change, but there is an increasing trend to have joint custody in case of a divorce. The details vary, but joint custody can extend to joint physical custody or shared parenting, where both parents take turns looking after the child. This is possible in the United States. In practice, in case of separation the parents will have to work out a parenting plan - ideally together, or in court if needs be. What the result is will depend on circumstances, and on the opinion of the court what is in the children's best interest. This may or may not mean joint physical custody. Child support payments are based on custody, so I would need to pay her child support. And since she always planned on her husband financially supporting her, then I would need to pay her alimony too. And because of imputed income, I couldn't afford to take a lower-paying job with more flexibility. Again, this depends. For example, with joint physical custody, there may be only small or no child support payments if both parents care for the children about equal time. And even if child support is due, there may be no alimony payments if the mother can work (even if she chooses not to). Again, a lot depends on the specific case and jurisdiction. Also, while it is not possible to reduce child support in a pre-nup (because theses payments belong to the child), you can (to some extent) limit alimony payments in a pre-nup. Is there any way out of this situation? How can I ensure, starting now before my children are born, that their primary caregiver is me? Here we are leaving legal territory. The short answer is: There is no way to ensure this, certainly not using legal means. The only good approach is to get to know your partner first, and make sure you have similar views on how to approach parenting. If she wants to be a stay-at-home mom, and you want to share both work and parenting (such as in a shared earning/shared parenting marriage) then you need to think (and speak) about how to reconcile these views. You may find that you are just not compatible on that point. Then take appropriate consequences. To put it plainly: In my opinion, if you do not trust your partner to respect your wishes on parenting together, she is probably not the right person for you to have children with.
Disclaimer: I don't know the specific regulations of New Jersey, so this mostly describes the general practise in the United States. However, it seems the rules are roughly similar in all states. During a divorce proceeding the court ordered the father to pay 1xxx a month in child support through the court/state supervision arrangement. This is common in the United States - child support payments are usually not sent directly from one parent to the other, instead the paying parent sends money to a government agency (or has it taken from their wages). This agency is usually called State Disbursement Unit - though in New Jersey the agency responsible is the New Jersey Family Support Payment Center (NJFSPC). So the father was probably ordered to pay via NJFSPC. Will it harm the case if the mother retrieves the money? assuming she notifies the court or her attorney? Or should she refuse the money? No, this should not harm the case. As you write, the mother should definitely inform the court and / or NJFSPC about the payment (the lawyer should know how to handle this). If the court order requires the father to pay via NJFSPC, paying directly to the mother is already a violation - so the father is likely not acting legally. While the accepted payment will likely count against the child support owed, it will not reduce the claim for child support in any other way - in particular it does not invalidate or reduce the court order to pay via NJFSPC.
Usually, an order would specify what happens. There is no hard and fast rule in this situation.
In the United States (and probably any common law country) a judge may find a person in criminal or civil contempt of court. One is in contempt of court if they refuse to follow the orders of the court. If one thinks the orders are wrong or improper the proper remedy is to ask for a stay of the order or file an emergency appeal and hope for a stay there. If no stay is received comply with the order until the appeal is heard. If we assume one does not follow the orders of a civil court, then that person will most likely be found in contempt of court. Originally this person will most likely receive a civil contempt charge, which will result in fines every single day the person is not in compliance with the order of the court. The [BC Supreme Court rules at 22-7][1] defines the parameters for failure to comply with court orders. At rule 22-8, it states that a person may be apprehended if they are found in contempt: (4)A person who is guilty of an act or omission described in Rule 12-5 (25) or 22-7 (5), in addition to being subject to any consequences prescribed by those rules, is guilty of contempt of court and subject to the court's power to punish contempt of court. (5)If the court is of the opinion that a person may be guilty of contempt of court, it may order, by warrant in Form 115 directed to a sheriff or other officer of the court or to a peace officer, that the person be apprehended and brought before the court. As an alternative type of sanction for civil contempt, the court can also have the person jailed until they comply with the order. In the United States, there is generally no limit on how long you can be jailed for civil contempt (the record is 14 years), and you have substantially lower due process protections (for instance, you don't have a right to a jury); both of those are because you can free yourself at any time by simply complying with the order. The court can also impose criminal contempt sanctions. Civil contempt is to get you to obey the order; criminal contempt is to punish you for disobeying. Criminal contempt sanctions are unconditional; it's a crime like other crimes, and a criminal sentence looks like &quot;$50,000 fine&quot; or &quot;30 days in jail&quot; rather than &quot;$1,000 per day until you obey the order&quot; or &quot;jail until you obey the order.&quot; [1]: http://www.bclaws.ca/civix/document/LOC/complete/statreg/--%20C%20--/Court%20Rules%20Act%20[RSBC%201996]%20c.%2080/05_Regulations/17_168_2009%20-%20Supreme%20Court%20Civil%20Rules/168_2009_03.xml#rule22-7 BC Supreme Court rules, rule 22-7
If they really ordered it, they entered into a contract, and you have a claim against them for damages suffered because the contract was breached. This would be a civil claim, not a criminal claim, in the Netherlands. However, if you're delivering an order that was sent anonymously, you have no way to prove that the person at the door is the one who ordered the food - and the onus would be on your to prove that it was. It could become a criminal act under a number of laws ("oplichting", "fraude", etc.) if intent can be proven but that's not easy - and you first have to get the police/public prosecutor interested in the case. It's quite comparable to someone ordering in a restaurant and not paying the bill, which is notoriously hard to prosecute criminally in the Netherlands. (Search for "eetpiraat" - dinner pirates) As a restaurant, you usually can only try to enforce a civil claim through the civil courts.
It's basically a question about the rules of court. While I can't say for sure about this case, a scheduled court date that isn't canceled, even in a stayed proceeding, is to be held. Non-appearance of a party or their representing lawyer is a bad idea as it might incur contempt of court. Such a court date can be used to (once more) inform the court and other parties of the stay. Paperwork that might have been delayed in postal service is then given over under the eyes of the judge, pretty much ensuring that the other parties did get them and nobody may cry foul play. Possibly the meeting can be used by the attorney to reschedule other court dates or depositions if the stay has a specific time length. Also note, that not all stays are for the whole case but might only rule to stay parts of it: a divorce case that includes a case for visitation of a child might stay the visitation part till a related case about where the child will live in the future is solved, but continue on the parts that try to sort out the divorce itself. Such non-stayed proceedings do proceed even under the stay of some others.
This is known as a retroactive or ex post facto law. Such laws are explicitly forbidden by the US Constitution (Wikipedia reference), and are generally frowned on in jurisdictions where the rule of law applies, partly because it is difficult to prove criminal intent when your action was not at the time criminal.