# Protection Orders and Dogs?



## Alyssa Myracle (Aug 4, 2008)

Washington State is attempting to modify their laws so that in the event a protection/restraining order is filed against someone, they may lose custody of their pets (including, of course, dogs).

Specifically:


> The court may order that a petitioner be
> 34 granted the exclusive custody or control of any pet owned or possessed
> 35 by the petitioner, respondent, or a minor child residing with either
> 36 the petitioner or the respondent and may prohibit the respondent from
> ...


http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2009-10/Pdf/Bills/House Bills/1148.pdf

Their logic is that domestic abusers may torture animals as a way of emotionally abusing their estranged spouse or children.

Sounds good, on paper.

Apparently we're in the business now of punishing people for crimes they've yet to commit?

What say you?


----------



## Dwyras Brown (Nov 21, 2008)

Pets can already be named in protection orders in CA. I think there is a need for it. An abuser will abuse the animal if he/she knows the other party is unavailable to be abused and also to mentally torture the other party who will worry about the pet.


----------



## Alyssa Myracle (Aug 4, 2008)

True... 

But a person who has been named in a protection order, isn't guilty of anything yet.

Where is the authority derived to take their dog away? If I haven't committed a crime, why should I lose my dog? 

Are there not OTHER laws, like animal cruelty laws, that are designed to address acts of cruelty? We need a new law designed to punish folks that haven't DONE anything yet?


----------



## Dwyras Brown (Nov 21, 2008)

Here the animal isn't taken from the protected party/petitioner. Looks like what I am reading in the proposed for your state. The animal is being removed from the respondent and being provided with the same protections as the petitioner . Basically the animal is being named as a protected party. If you can find fault with that then you probably shouldn't have an animal of any sort.


----------



## Alyssa Myracle (Aug 4, 2008)

If I can find fault with taking an animal away from someone who has not been convicted of a single crime, I shouldn't own an animal?

Well, from your standard of logic, you're 100% right.

Take all the dogs away from people convicted of doing nothing wrong.

Makes perfect sense to me!


----------



## Dwyras Brown (Nov 21, 2008)

For a protection order to be granted, there has to be reasonable belief by a judge for the necessity. Just like a warrant. Now If we used your thought logic, why look for weapons of mass destruction. We should wait until they are used, to look for them. Get off your high horse and think for a minute. Or maybe there should be no protection orders at all until the person wanting the order is injured or worse.


----------



## Alyssa Myracle (Aug 4, 2008)

Reasonable belief by a judge constitutes a woman being afraid of a man.
You know it. I know it. Everyone knows it.


A piece of paper is not going to stop a real abuser from doing ANYTHING.
A piece of paper has yet to protect a single woman.


But I've sure seen a lot of women abuse protection orders to exact revenge on their ex's.


There are laws in effect that prohibit abuse of an animal.

Don't compare international policy to local law.

It's apples and kumquats.


----------



## Alyssa Myracle (Aug 4, 2008)

Dwyras Brown said:


> For a protection order to be granted, there has to be reasonable belief by a judge for the necessity. Just like a warrant. Now If we used your thought logic, why look for weapons of mass destruction. We should wait until they are used, to look for them. Get off your high horse and think for a minute. Or maybe there should be no protection orders at all until the person wanting the order is injured or worse.


 
And as an aside (even though it has no relevance to the conversation at hand) Iraq HAD used weapons of mass destruction before.

So, the precedent was already established.


----------



## Dwyras Brown (Nov 21, 2008)

Didn't compare the two. I also know women (and men) use the court to get at the other person, I've written enough reports because of it. I also know that the order is just a piece of paper and that the respondent can ignore it or not. If people always did the right thing, I would have to find another line of work. But then again, I guess you might too.


----------



## Alyssa Myracle (Aug 4, 2008)

I guess we have to agree to disagree.

I think this established a bad precedent of allowing the govenment to take people's property away, without due process, on the whim of someone who may simply have a grudge.

I'm of the belief that there are enough laws in place that prohibit and punish perpetrators of animal abuse, without widening an already big loophole in the law.


----------



## Julie Ann Alvarez (Aug 4, 2007)

Alyssa Myracle said:


> True...
> 
> But a person who has been named in a protection order, isn't guilty of anything yet.
> 
> ...



I agree with Alyssa. Sorry but I have a problem with people being loosing their rights before they have been formally charged.

It is not a perfect system but it is what we have and for the most part it works well enough.

Julie


----------



## Dwyras Brown (Nov 21, 2008)

Agreed, but I'm looking at it from a practical standpoint not personal. It gives me as an LEO another tool for dealing with a problem. I'll pm you and explain later. We all know that we have enough laws on the books to cover everything thought of. A new law isn't going to matter to those who are criminally inclined, but it does help LEOs.


----------



## Alyssa Myracle (Aug 4, 2008)

Dwyras Brown said:


> Agreed, but I'm looking at it from a practical standpoint not personal. It gives me as an LEO another tool for dealing with a problem. I'll pm you and explain later. We all know that we have enough laws on the books to cover everything thought of. A new law isn't going to matter to those who are criminally inclined, but it does help LEOs.


Looking at it from an MP standpoint, it's assinine.

Shoot... I guess if a disabled person has a restraining order lodged against them, their therapy dog can be taken away, eh? (Granted, that's a tad green gorrilla, but that's mypoint with laws like this.)


----------



## Dwyras Brown (Nov 21, 2008)

And as a MP, how does it affect your job?


----------



## Jim Nash (Mar 30, 2006)

As a Police Officer and knowing that they hand out Protection Orders like candy during Halloween , I find it scary that my ex could get one and have my PSD taken away from me .


----------



## Dwyras Brown (Nov 21, 2008)

Jim, I'm sure there would be an out in there somewhere. But you would have to worry about losing your gun. But there is an exception to that too.


----------



## Alyssa Myracle (Aug 4, 2008)

Well, if you want to get down to the nitty gritty of it...

it would depend on who the respondant is.

If the respondant is the military sponsor, the issue of a dog is likely going to be a moot point, anyway.
The soldier is gong to be moved out of family housing and placed in the barracks, where the dog can't go.

If the respondant is the civilian party, that could get odd. Typically, the soldier still ends up in the barracks, but cannot take the dog, so where the heck would the dog go?

Ultimately, it would probably lead to an awful lot of dogs being turned loose on the back 40 of the base.

And I'd wager, similar things would occur in the civilian world, too.


----------



## Alyssa Myracle (Aug 4, 2008)

Most times, though, the respondants military career is over, anyway.

Once that DV charge gets lobbed (legitimate or not) they're done serving Uncle Sam.

Thank you Lautenburg.

A convicted violent felon can serve in the military, but not someone who violates a protection order (even if only by making a phone call...)


----------



## Dwyras Brown (Nov 21, 2008)

Alyssa a lot of people get waivers for military with DV convictions.


----------



## Alyssa Myracle (Aug 4, 2008)

Uh no.

Without going back to court to have the Lautenberg removed (which requires a waiting period and no additional charges), you cannot be a member of the US Military.

http://www.defenselink.mil/vwac/docs/lautenberg.ppt#335,17,DoD Policy for Military


----------



## Dwyras Brown (Nov 21, 2008)

But your talking about after a conviction, we were talking about people with no conviction and a restraining order.


----------



## Alyssa Myracle (Aug 4, 2008)

No, I was clear that this is only after a DV Charge.
I pointed out that if a soldier is charged with DV, their career is over.


----------



## Dwyras Brown (Nov 21, 2008)

Over after a conviction not only a charge


----------



## Alyssa Myracle (Aug 4, 2008)

Correct. I worded that poorly.


----------



## Courtney Guthrie (Oct 30, 2007)

This is kinda scary. 

I agree with Jim, the orders are handed out like candy. I know they are here in WA. When the PD gets a call for a DV, the person that goes to jail AUTOMATICALLY gets a Protection Order issued on them by the state. It is very hard to have one lifted and I know most judges in my county will NOT lift one until AFTER the conviction and even then I know of cases where they kept the order in place. 

I can say that in certain situations it is not a bad idea BUT I don't see it necessary in ALL situations. Maybe they can change it so that it is different for each situation. IDK. 

Interesting. 

Courtney


----------



## Dwyras Brown (Nov 21, 2008)

Sounds to me tha maybe Washington state is as ****ed up as Washington D.C.


----------



## Laura Bollschweiler (Apr 25, 2008)

So basically all it's saying is that if a protection order is issued, the petitioner can add the family pet to the protected parties, right? I don't really see a problem with that. 

I think the judges in our county need more than reasonable belief; they need clear and convincing evidence to grant a request for a restraining order. I haven't done family court in over a year, so I could be wrong. It is my opinion that restraining orders are not handed out like candy in this county. They are denied lots of times. Sometimes they're reduced to a non-CLETS order. If a child or other family member was added to the order, there had to be a good reason for it. Dwyras, I didn't even know they could do this in CA already! After admittedly only a couple years in family court in CA (thank goodness), I never saw a DVTRO that included the family pet as a named party. Or even mentioned.

I'd be willing to bet not many judges would hear both sides and end up allowing a petitioner to take over custody of a respondent's PSD.

Laura


----------



## Steve Strom (May 25, 2008)

Dwyras Brown said:


> Sounds to me tha maybe Washington state is as ****ed up as Washington D.C.


Thats from all the Californians moving north.


----------



## Laura Bollschweiler (Apr 25, 2008)

That's obviously because we're only sending the ****ed up ones northward.

Laura


----------



## Steve Strom (May 25, 2008)

Oops, I forgot my location doesnt show here. I'm in California.


----------



## Courtney Guthrie (Oct 30, 2007)

I don't know/care what it's from just that it is not abused. So many laws today are abused and used to people's advantages. Crazy crazy world out there. 

Courtney


----------

