Articles Tagged with 50B Protective Order

Published on:

Domestic violence is a severe offense. If you’ve been falsely accused by a spouse, partner, or household member, you must take the allegations seriously, even if you know you are innocent.

Continue reading →

Published on:

A Domestic Violence Protective Order (DVPO) can last up to one year in North Carolina. These protection orders can be filed against anyone you have a personal relationship with, and violations mean the other party can be arrested. DVPOs provide a much-needed layer of protection for divorcing spouses facing domestic violence.

If your DVPO is set to expire soon, you may be able to receive a renewal. A renewal can last up to two years, and you can continue to receive renewals as long as there is good cause for the DVPO to remain in place.[1] Continue reading →

Published on:

Domestic Violence Protective Orders (DVPO) can be filed in North Carolina when you have a personal relationship with someone who is harassing, threatening, or committing another type of domestic violence against you. Which relationships are classified as personal relationships for this purpose? Continue reading →

Published on:

If you are a victim of domestic violence in North Carolina, you may be able to file for a protective order. Domestic violence protective orders (DVPO; also called 50B orders) are court orders that prohibit an abuser from being near a victim. DVPOs provide a certain level of security if you are fearful that someone you have a close relationship with will try to harm you.

A DVPO can be filed during the divorce process as well, if one spouse harasses or threatens the other. A Greensboro divorce lawyer can help you obtain a domestic violence protective order. Continue reading →

Published on:

CHOCIEJ V. RICHBURG, 2023-NCCOA-________ (2023). 

Facts: Plaintiff and Defendant dated. On May 31, 2021, there was a fight between the couple, and Defendant broke Plaintiff’s nose with his fists and/or forehead. Another fight broke out between the couple in the bedroom, wherein Defendant used his belt and household items, such as a lamp, to hit Plaintiff. This caused black-eyes and bruising on Plaintiff. The police were called, but Defendant fled.

Eventually, the police arrested him in July 2021 and charged him with assault on a female. After the arrest, Defendant called Plaintiff’s work and reported that Plaintiff had wrongfully disclosed his confidential medical records to a third party. This resulted in Plaintiff’s termination by her employer. That same day, Plaintiff sought a Domestic Violence Protective Order (DVPO). At the hearing, there was ample evidence of the assaults and damage done to Plaintiff by the Defendant.

The trial court also took into consideration the time between the assaults and Plaintiff’s filing for the DVPO as well as the timing of the filing with her termination. In the trial court’s denial of a DVPO, it specifically noted that the court did not believe that Plaintiff would have sought a DVPO if she had not been terminated, essentially saying that the filing was in retaliation to Defendant’s whistleblowing. Plaintiff appealed. Continue reading →

Published on:

Keenan v. Keenan, 2022-NCCOA-554, No. COA21-579 (Aug. 16, 2022)

In August 2020, Plaintiff’s ex-husband came to Plaintiff’s house to cut her grass. Seems innocent enough, right? But Defendant ex-husband had a history of physically, verbally, and emotionally abusing Plaintiff, had been texting Plaintiff inappropriate things, had been told multiple times not to come to Plaintiff’s house, and wouldn’t leave even though Plaintiff told him to four times. That context makes the situation seem very different, doesn’t it? Plaintiff got so nervous about what Defendant might do that it gave her a panic attack, and she filed for a Domestic Violence Protective Order (DVPO). The DVPO was granted because the trial court found that Defendant placed “the aggrieved party or a member of [her] family or household in fear of imminent serious bodily injury or continued harassment, as defined in [N.C.G.S. §] 14-277.3A, that rises to such a level as to inflict substantial emotional distress.” (N.C.G.S. § 50B-1 (a)(2)) Continue reading →

Published on:

Plaintiff filed a complaint and motion for domestic violence protective order (DVPO) on March 12, 2021.  When using form AOC-CV-303, Plaintiff described no instances where Defendant either threatened to use or actually used a firearm in the context of domestic violence.  However, Plaintiff did describe instances of harassment.   Additionally, when prompted by the form AOC-CV-303 regarding whether Defendant had firearms and ammunition in his possession, Plaintiff noted that she was uncertain of how many or where Defendant kept his firearms and ammunition given the parties had been divorced since March of 2016.  In addition to leaving the space blank on the form AOC-CV-303 as to whether the Defendant had a “pattern of threatened use of violence with a firearm against any persons,” Plaintiff also did not indicate that she wished the Court to prohibit Defendant from possessing or purchasing firearms.

Continue reading →

Published on:

Plaintiff filed a complaint and motion for domestic violence protective order (hereinafter “DVPO”) on March 12, 2021.  When using form AOC-CV-303, Plaintiff described no instances where Defendant either threatened use or actually used a firearm in the context of domestic violence.  However, Plaintiff did describe instances of harassment.   Additionally, when prompted by the form AOC-CV-303 regarding whether Defendant had firearms and ammunition in his possession, Plaintiff noted that she was uncertain of how many or where Defendant kept his firearms and ammunition given the parties had been divorced since March of 2016.  In addition to leaving the space blank on the form AOC-CV-303 as to whether the Defendant had a “pattern of threatened use of violence with a firearm against any persons,” Plaintiff also did not indicate that she wished the Court to prohibit Defendant from possessing or purchasing firearms.

Continue reading →

Published on:

KEENAN V. KEENAN, 2022-NCCOA-554.

Facts: Plaintiff and Defendant were divorced. In August of 2022, Plaintiff alleged that Defendant came to her home to cut some grass despite Plaintiff telling Defendant not to do so. Defendant then refused to leave the home when Plaintiff asked several times. It should be noted that Plaintiff communicated to Defendant that Plaintiff’s brother had already made plans to address the lawn. Plaintiff alleged that she was very afraid of Defendant due to his past acts of emotional/physical abuse and past text messages. A temporary ex parte domestic violence protective order (DVPO) was granted. At the return hearing, the trial court granted the DVPO against Defendant. Defendant argued that he had a reason to cut the grass, as he thought the long grass was dangerous and sought to protect the children and their best interests. Defendant appealed. Continue reading →

Published on:

In Re TB, 2022-NCSC-43.

Facts: In January of 2019, Mecklenburg County DSS filed a petition alleging that the minor child in this action was neglected and dependent. They later moved her to foster care. The petition was initiated when police reported a domestic violence incident in the child’s home in early January, in which the father was arrested. When DSS spoke to Father and Mother after the incident, and both admitted to smoking marijuana, Father acknowledged he had mental health needs and that he had been in treatment for domestic violence through NOVA in the past. Mother said that she would have left Father if she had more family support. Father said he was willing to leave the family home. Father then agreed to go to Monarch for mental health assessment, and both parents agreed to submit to random drug screening. Continue reading →