• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

How do we get a restraining order removed?

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

A

aceguy21

Guest
I live in Washington State
I'm not sure were to post this?

I’m a 21year old man(almost 22) who was dating a girl who is 41days off of being 18, but is currently 17 still. (I know it sound bad but we are in love...ya i know) Her parents are deeply religious and do not approve of the relationship (there has been NO! sex involved, they just simply do not like me) and the dad has filed/is filing a restraining order against me to keep us apart. (I have not been served yet)

My questions are:
1. Can he do this? The legal age of consent if WA is 17 right? And we are just dating?
2. Can she still call me? Even if I cant call or see her?
3. How does she go about removing the order when she turns 18 in 41 days? Because she wants to but we have no idea how to do this?
 


rmet4nzkx

Senior Member
Is it a threat or a promise

41 days and counting.....
The age of consent in Washington state is 18 there are some exceptions, but that is the basic age of consent.
"Can she still call me? Even if I cant call or see her?" That depends on what is ordered, if there is an order.
"How does she go about removing the order when she turns 18 in 41 days? Because she wants to but we have no idea how to do this?"
Most likely, if there is an order it is tempoary and will end at the time of the hearing when you will get an opportunity to defend yourself or her 18th birthday unless something is alledged such as domestic Violence, where it might be issued on her behalf, in which case she could still come to court and provide her testimony, you will know more once you see if there is really an order filed.

As a parent, he has the right, under certain circumstances to get a restraining order against you, one of those reasons being "seduction" which does not not have to mean sexual intercourse. There are penalties for false reports.

At this point you don't know if he has actually gotten one and hasn't served you, perhaps he is hoping the threat will be enough.

Go down to the courthouse and see if there is an order filed and see the charges. Call your local crisis hotline, they often have referals to what seems most appropriate for advise or help. This may include your girlfriend if that is deemd appropriate but wait and follow the instructions of what ever agency is helping you or an attorney if you have one, don't make it worse by giving them more reason to seek an order if they haven't produced enough evidence to get on by now.

If you girlfriend is being abused that needs to be reported, not letting her date is not abuse but there are other forms of abuse.

41 days is not a long time even though you are in "love" and even if you wait until she is 18, you will still have to deal with her parents on some level if you continue to have a relationship, which may influence how the two of you respond once she turns 18. Getting married, if that is what you are considering, won't change their attitude towards you, so think through carefully all your plans.
 

stealth2

Under the Radar Member
As the parents, however, they have every right to restrict her contact with you. Age of consent notwithstanding, at 17 she is still a minor and they CAN keep you away from her.

Even when she is over 18, they can make it a condition of her remaining under their roof.
 

racer72

Senior Member
Something else to add, in Washington state, restraining orders work both ways. If you do in fact (or will) have a restraining order placed against you, and the girl contacts you, she can be arrested for violating that same restraining order. I have seen many cases in municipal court that it is the person that sought the RO is the one in court for violating the order.
 
A

aceguy21

Guest
another question?!?

From WA state
I have another question (the answers have been helpful by the way and thanks) if say hypothetically we had been physically involved, not sex, but everything but:
1.) can I be charged with anything? The guy really hates me, is very religious, and has said he will do everything in his power to keep us from EVER seeing each other again? and that might include, if its possible pressing some kind of charges, it does not really help that she has basicly told him that shes going to see me when 18 anyway, and is looking to move out as soon as she is 18.?
2.) What does the kind of charges (if any) intale?

THanks for time and help!!
 

stealth2

Under the Radar Member
Sexual contact includes more than intercourse. Oral sex. Petting. Mutual masturbation. Kissing. All of those spell S.E.X.U.A.L...O.F.F.E.N.D.E.R. You could be charged with any number of sexual offenses, depending on the exact circumstances. The penalties can ruin your life.

Good luck.

(edit) Even when she turns 18, he can ask the DA to press charges against you based on previous conduct/contact.
 
A

aceguy21

Guest
How does that relate to this????HELP ME PLEASE!!!!!!

I’m confused after your last post and I got kind of worried..(PLEASE HELP ME!!) So I did some more searching and came up with these to laws for WA state (see below) to do with someone that is 17 having “contact” with someone that is over 18 and they seem to have slightly conflicting signals as to what would be appropriate and what would not be???

What is deemed “Immoral” by the modern court with someone in our situation when the girl is 41days of 18 and the guy is not a whole lot older or in any position of authority over her??? A kiss? Touching? Etc??? I mean the dad that is involved might think kissing outside of Marriage is “immoral” but is that really something that can viably be used to prosecute me? I realize that just him trying could cause me a world of stress and pain, so me and my girlfriend (if I’m allowed to call her that) have mutually cut off contact for at least the next 41days, even though I’ve yet to receive the order, (she said he has been filling out the paper work) do you think this is wise? If I had been all that wise I would have done this research prier to becoming “involved” with her, but unfortunately I was not, and as it was an affair of the heart, if you will, that might be understandable to most people, but justice is blind, right?? I really, really am worried about this now and cant even begin to afford a lawyer if he decides to try and “GET me” just to keep her away from me, damm do I feel dumb…

RCW 9A.44.093

"(1) A person is guilty of sexual misconduct with a minor in the first degree when the person has, or knowingly causes another person under the age of eighteen to have, sexual intercourse with another person who is at least sixteen years old but less than eighteen years old and not married to the perpetrator, if the perpetrator is at least sixty months older than the victim, is in a significant relationship to the victim, and abuses a supervisory position within that relationship in order to engage in or cause another person under the age of eighteen to engage in sexual intercourse with the victim."

The Age of Consent in Washington is not 18. It is 16. The statute (shown above) that you are making reference to makes it a crime for a person 60-months or older than the younger person to have sexual intercoarse with the younger person if ALL of the following conditions exist:

1-The older person is in a "significent" relationship with the younger person, AND the older person is in a supervisory relationship within that relationship, AND uses that supervisory position in order to have sexual intercourse with the younger person.

This statute refers to relationships between persons who become sexually involved 16 or 17-years-olds, and who are in a position of authority over the younger person and use this authority to gain a sexual advantage. Such a situation might exist between a 16 or 17-year-old student and a teacher or coach who is at least 60 months older.

EDITOR: We agree and are revising our entry.

It would still, however, be a good idea to keep the red "18" there, because Washington has another statute, entitled: " Communicating With a Minor For Immoral Purposes ," which has been used to selectively prosecute individuals who communicate with persons under 18 for purposes deemed "immoral." The penalty for a 1st offense is up to a year in jail, and for a 2nd or subsequent offense (or for any person who has previously been convicted of any sex offense in the United States) the penalty is up to 5 years in prison. Just ASKINBG can, under certain circumstances, land the offender in jail or prison.


RCW 9.68A.090 (This is the revised law)
Communication with minor for immoral purposes.

A person who communicates with a minor for immoral purposes is guilty of a gross misdemeanor,
unless that person has previously been convicted under this section or of a felony sexual offense
under chapter 9.68A, 9A.44, or 9A.64 RCW or of any other felony sexual offense in this or any
other state, in which case the person is guilty of a class C felony punishable under chapter 9A.20
RCW.
 

stealth2

Under the Radar Member
What you don't seem to understand is that until she is an adult (and 18-1day is still NOT an adult, legally), Dad has full and complete control over who she can and cannot see. Even if it ends up going nowhere, he can cause you a world of pain and stress if you don't keep away from his daughter.
 
G

Gray Fox

Guest
A few court cases on this issue..

State v. Robert Danforth in the King County Court of Appeals makes this issue clear.

An excerpt:

[1] Danforth, however, does not allege that RCW 9.68A.090 is wholly unconstitutional on its face; rather, he alleges that the statute is unconstitutionally vague as applied to his conduct.

" Although the actual conduct of defendant is irrelevant when a statute is alleged to be unconstitutional on its face, the conduct of defendant is relevant when it is alleged that the statute is unconstitutional only in part, or the court, although not finding the statute to be unconstitutionally vague on its face, finds the statute to be potentially vague as to some conduct. In such cases, the court must look to defendant's conduct to determine whether the statute, as applied to that conduct, is unconstitutional. BELLEVUE v. MILLER, [85 Wn.2d 539, 536 P.2d 603 (1975)]. This is because while a statute may be vague or potentially vague as to some conduct, the statute may be constitutionally applied to one whose conduct clearly falls within the constitutional "core" of the statute. STATE v. ZUANICH, 92 Wn.2d 61, 593 P.2d 1314 (1979). STATE v. HOOD, 24 Wn. App. 155, 158, 600 P.2d 636 (1979). Here, RCW 9.68A.090 is unconstitutionally vague as applied to Danforth's conduct because his conduct does not clearly fall within the constitutional "core" of the statute as defined by the Legislature.

The phrase "immoral purposes" would be too vague under constitutional standards if it were read in a vacuum. SEE STATE v. CARTER, 89 Wn.2d 236, 240-41, 570 P.2d 1218 (1977). However, when this phrase is read in context with RCW 9.68A, it clearly provides persons of common intelligence and understanding with fair notice of and ascertainable standards of the conduct sought to be prohibited. This is the constitutional "core" of RCW 9.68A.090. The constitutional "core" of conduct prohibited by RCW 9.68A.090 is communication for purposes of sexual exploitation and abuse of children as provided for in RCW 9.68A. This chapter prohibits conduct relating to the sexual exploitation and abuse of children as it regards sexually explicit conduct that will be photographed or made part of a live performance and the patronizing of a juvenile prostitute. SEE RCW 9.68A.001, .100. Thus, the individual sections of this chapter define the "immoral purposes" for which communication with minors is legislatively prohibited.

[2] While we may view Danforth's conduct with disgust and all agree that it is "immoral" by most standards, Danforth's conduct does not fall within the constitutional "core" of conduct prohibited by RCW 9.68A.090 as presently drafted. We may not arbitrarily impose our own standards of "morality". It is within the exclusive domain of the Legislature to create the laws and define the standards. We may not usurp the Legislature's function. The drafting of a statute is the function of the Legislature, not the judiciary. STATE v. ENLOE, 47 Wn. App. 165, 170, 734 P.2d 520 (1987). The courts may not read into a statute things which it conceives the Legislature has left out unintentionally. ENLOE, 47 Wn. App. at 170. Therefore, if conduct such as Danforth's is to be prohibited, such a prohibition must be created by the Legislature. We may not do so.

[3] We are compelled to reject the State's argument that RCW 9.68A.090 prohibits the communication made by Danforth to the two minors. Such an argument is anomalous because the Legislature has failed to make the underlying conduct itself illegal. The prosecutor has failed to cite, and our research has not uncovered, any law prohibiting 16- and 17-year-olds from engaging in consensual sexual activity with adults. Further, the "immoral purposes" for which RCW 9.68A.090 prohibits communication are limited to those that clearly fall within the constitutional "core" of the statute. Consensual (non-prostitution related) sexual activity by 16- and 17-year-olds with adults is not even addressed by RCW 9.68A. If Danforth had asked the two minors here to engage in sexually explicit conduct knowing that such conduct would be photographed or made part of a live performance, or had engaged or offered to engage in sexual conduct in return for a fee, such communication would fall directly within the constitutional core of the statute and be prohibited. This, however, is not the case. Accordingly, as distasteful as we find Danforth's conduct to be, we are compelled to hold that the statute is unconstitutionally vague as applied to Danforth's conduct and, therefore, we must reverse. Because we reverse on grounds of vagueness, we decline to address the other issues raised by Danforth on this appeal.
 
A

aceguy21

Guest
Thanks for advice

This is all just to confusing for me and at this point potentially risky so we (my friend and I) have mutually decided (about a week ago) to not have any kind of contact (to the point of me changing my gym and cell phone number) what so ever for at least a few months (2-4), and if its something that’s meant to last we will both still be around for each other after a period of time with out calling, seeing etc…But thanks very much for the time put into coming up with wise legal and personal advice! I really do appreciate it.. Thanks (oh and its been about a week and nothing has happened so maybe it was just a threat on the dads part, but I need to be more of a man and try and respect her dads authority even if he’s a little off his rocker, I would feel the same way if put into his place, and have been very foolish for becoming involved with her before she was 18 even if it was just before) so that’s my update if anyone was following this…
 

rmet4nzkx

Senior Member
I'm glad to hear that you have mutually come to a responsible decision. Deciding to wait past her majority shows maturity on both your parts and may have benefits yet to unfold. It is gracious to consider the father's point of view, it is difficult being a parent these days, not that those of us who are older didn't give our parents some gray hairs, but things have changed over the years, if it is meant to be, time will fly. Have a good and healthy life.
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top