[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
"And despite Radified's objections, I do see some wisdom in issuing TROs before a vigorous fact-checking process can take place."

Then you've never had a restraining order put on you. When my grandfather was about to die my Aunt got a restraining order put on us. My grandfather was losing it by that point, his wife had just died, and she wanted to get her hands on the money. Once she did she left my grandfather to die alone, none of us were allowed to see him. She didn't even pay for the funeral, my other Aunt did. At the funeral she left halfway through to meet a lawyer so she could sign some papers and get a check. In the middle of his freaking funeral.

Could the court have avoided this, sure. Christ, the information was there and easy to get. My parents took care of my grandparents when they got ill. When my grandmother had cancer she came to live with us for a year. We took care of her until the day she died. My mother was always the responsible daughter. Her sister was always a total wacko though. She dropped out of 6 colleges, was constantly in mental counciling, dated these total wierdos. If the court had bothered to obtain testimony from anyone in the family or looked up any records they would have put out a restraining order on her, not our family.

I never got to say goodbye to my grandfather, and he died alone and afraid. Something has to change.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I've never had a restraining order put on me. And while your family situation sounds unfair, I certainly think the state has an interest in protecting people from possible attackers first, and fact-checking next, as the time it takes to investigate various situations can be lengthy, and TROs could give some level of protection against potential attackers. I grant that the system isn't perfect, but I don't see an alternative to TROs. I'd hate to think an abused partner (in a life-threatening situation) might have to wait a substantial amount of time before receiving what could be a life-saving restraining order.