Can a criminal protection order be overturned?

[ftaressa]

Hi. A person was convicted of stalking her ex-husband (falsely) and got 6 months jail. At sentencing, the defendant signed a waiver of the rights to appeal because she would have been in jail longer otherwise. At the same time a 10 year criminal protection order was entered to prevent contact between the defendant and her toddler child. There has never been any incident of harm to the child.

The question is, can one person (judge) really determine the lifelong fate of a child and order the child to grow up without the mother? This ruling seems so wrong and inconceivable. Aren't there any overseeing agencies that make sure an extreme sentence like this one could never occur? Isn't this against the constitutional rights of parent and child? Is it possible to appeal a sentence (or part of it) while not appealing the verdict? Anything? Thank you.
PS: Washington state

 

[quincy]

Is this a real situation? If so, who are you in all of this?

First, there are sentencing guidelines. A judge will most often follow these guidelines.

A prosecutor is the one who requests a criminal protection order, this when there is a threat to a victim or witness. A request can be made for a modification of the order.

Here is a link to criminal protection orders: https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=10.99.050

 

[Taxing Matters]

The question is, can one person (judge) really determine the lifelong fate of a child and order the child to grow up without the mother?

The answer to that is the judge can enter a protection order for a specific period of time, like 10 years. The purpose of the order is to protect the child from possible harm. While you say there was no threat to the child, there must have been some evidence to the contrary or the prosecutor would not have pursued it.

Aren't there any overseeing agencies that make sure an extreme sentence like this one could never occur?

That is the role of the appeals court, to ensure the judge applied the law correctly in the case. If the mother chose not to appeal the matter, then she accepted the outcome.

Isn't this against the constitutional rights of parent and child?

Not when the court determines that the mother is a threat to the child.

Is it possible to appeal a sentence (or part of it) while not appealing the verdict? Anything?

The mother would need to consult a Washington state criminal defense or family law attorney to determine if she has any recourse at this point.

 

[quincy]

Here is a link to Washington's stalking law: https://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9a.46.110

The 6 months in jail would not be an unusual sentence for misdemeanor stalking. The 10 year criminal protection order, however, seems odd unless there was felony stalking.

I agree with Taxing Matters that the mom should speak with an attorney in Washington to see if the protection order can be modified so she can have (perhaps supervised) visits with her child.

I tend to think there is more to the story than has been related here.

 

[ftaressa]

Thank you for your replies. It was felony stalking. (I assume that everyone here knows that felony stalking has nothing to do with actual stalking. A series of communications which the "victim" experiences as frightening defines stalking. If one of those communications happens during a protection order it makes it felony stalking). The prosecutor asked for a protection order for the child to "protect" the father who hates the mother, not the child.
I am not sure if anyone here has ever been to jail but the mother felt she would not survive in jail. She was assaulted, terrified to the max, lost 7 pounds due to food allergies the jail did not regard, was shielded from daylight for 30 days, was withheld essential heart medication doctors had prescribed. This is typical for American jails yet people who had never been to jail have a hard time believing these conditions. The mother had to accept the plea because she thought she would die in jail and not because the felt like admitting to stalking or that she should not see her child for 10 years. So it's easy to waive your right for appeal if being tortured is the alternative. It all just seems so unbelievable yet is shows the power and discretion prosecutors and judges have to do whatever they want. I still think there may be other, constitutional protections which prevent one judge from permanently damaging a parent-child relationship. Thanks

 

[Ohiogal]

Thank you for your replies. It was felony stalking. (I assume that everyone here knows that felony stalking has nothing to do with actual stalking. A series of communications which the "victim" experiences as frightening defines stalking. If one of those communications happens during a protection order it makes it felony stalking). The prosecutor asked for a protection order for the child to "protect" the father who hates the mother, not the child.
I am not sure if anyone here has ever been to jail but the mother felt she would not survive in jail. She was assaulted, terrified to the max, lost 7 pounds due to food allergies the jail did not regard, was shielded from daylight for 30 days, was withheld essential heart medication doctors had prescribed. This is typical for American jails yet people who had never been to jail have a hard time believing these conditions. The mother had to accept the plea because she thought she would die in jail and not because the felt like admitting to stalking or that she should not see her child for 10 years. So it's easy to waive your right for appeal if being tortured is the alternative. It all just seems so unbelievable yet is shows the power and discretion prosecutors and judges have to do whatever they want. I still think there may be other, constitutional protections which prevent one judge from permanently damaging a parent-child relationship. Thanks

Mother is the one who damaged the parent-child relationship with her behavior.

 

[quincy]

Thank you for your replies. It was felony stalking. (I assume that everyone here knows that felony stalking has nothing to do with actual stalking. A series of communications which the "victim" experiences as frightening defines stalking. If one of those communications happens during a protection order it makes it felony stalking). The prosecutor asked for a protection order for the child to "protect" the father who hates the mother, not the child.
I am not sure if anyone here has ever been to jail but the mother felt she would not survive in jail. She was assaulted, terrified to the max, lost 7 pounds due to food allergies the jail did not regard, was shielded from daylight for 30 days, was withheld essential heart medication doctors had prescribed. This is typical for American jails yet people who had never been to jail have a hard time believing these conditions. The mother had to accept the plea because she thought she would die in jail and not because the felt like admitting to stalking or that she should not see her child for 10 years. So it's easy to waive your right for appeal if being tortured is the alternative. It all just seems so unbelievable yet is shows the power and discretion prosecutors and judges have to do whatever they want. I still think there may be other, constitutional protections which prevent one judge from permanently damaging a parent-child relationship. Thanks

The mother should not have agreed to the terms if she thought she could do better at trial.

But the fact is, she agreed to the abbreviated jail sentence for reasons she clearly considered. She feared jail.

If she is now regretting her decision to trade less jail time for a 10 year protection order that prevents her from seeing her child, that is unfortunate. But it could be difficult to undo it now.

She needs an attorney if she wants any chance of modifying the criminal protection order that the prosecutor sought, that the judge approved and that the victims are probably content to leave as is.

Good luck.

 

[Eekamouse]

Thank you for your replies. It was felony stalking. (I assume that everyone here knows that felony stalking has nothing to do with actual stalking. A series of communications which the "victim" experiences as frightening defines stalking. If one of those communications happens during a protection order it makes it felony stalking). The prosecutor asked for a protection order for the child to "protect" the father who hates the mother, not the child.
I am not sure if anyone here has ever been to jail but the mother felt she would not survive in jail. She was assaulted, terrified to the max, lost 7 pounds due to food allergies the jail did not regard, was shielded from daylight for 30 days, was withheld essential heart medication doctors had prescribed. This is typical for American jails yet people who had never been to jail have a hard time believing these conditions. The mother had to accept the plea because she thought she would die in jail and not because the felt like admitting to stalking or that she should not see her child for 10 years. So it's easy to waive your right for appeal if being tortured is the alternative. It all just seems so unbelievable yet is shows the power and discretion prosecutors and judges have to do whatever they want. I still think there may be other, constitutional protections which prevent one judge from permanently damaging a parent-child relationship. Thanks

Why'd she communicate with the father after a protection order was put in place? She did this to herself. She knew she shouldn't contact the father because the court ordered her not to but she did so anyway. She didn't fear jail then, I guess.

 

[Taxing Matters]

I still think there may be other, constitutional protections which prevent one judge from permanently damaging a parent-child relationship. Thanks

The judge makes the decision based on the evidence presented and the applicable federal and state laws, including the Constitution. If the parties (in this case the state and the defendant) reach agreement on the matter, then generally that agreement is what the court will accept. If one of the parties believes the judge made an error in applying the law, there is the possibility of appealing the judge's decision. That appeal is the remedy. If you have in mind that some executive government agency can overturn the court order, that's not how things work. If she wants a shot to undo or change the order, she needs to see a lawyer to find out what options she may have. She might be able to bring a motion to modify or terminate the order at some point, for example. She might not end up cut off for the whole ten years.

If you are getting all of the story from just the mother then you are not getting the complete picture. She is, of course, biased in favor of herself and will likely tell you only those things that tilt things in her favor. I think quincy is correct that there is probably more to this than has been stated here, and may be more to this than you know.