Restraining Orders With Only Claim of "Fear" Against Federal Case Law Which Trumps State Statutes and State Case Law

Blazel v. Bradley, 698 F.Supp. 756 (W.D.Wisc. 1988)(Statute permitting

issuance of ex parte temporary restraining order in domestic abuse action

threatened deprivation of property and liberty interests under due

process clause).

The Federal Judge held that circumstances of domestic abuse cases are not

sufficiently unusual or extraordinary to justify ex parte temporary

restraining orders without due process predeprivation hearings; threat of

harm was less to general public then to private individuals; immediate

action was not required in all cases; and deprivation was initiated by a

private party.

Wisconsin statute permitting ex parte temporary restraining order in

domestic abuse action required victim to make showing of imminent danger.

Ex parte temporary restraining order that required husband to avoid his

home and children for seven days deprived him of property and liberty

without due process, where wife's petition contained no allegations of

risk or immediate harm, but only alleged that husband had assaulted her

two weeks earlier and there had been previous assaults.

The statute's requirement of a showing of physical violence encompasses a

requirement that the violence be shown to be imminent.

(My note): The New Jersey PDVA requires a showing of physical harm,

battering or physical violence. Harassment does not constitute any of

these acts and should be stricken from the domestic violence statutes.