Molestation order questions

Glatter wrote: »

You make it sound as though the courts are running a job creation scheme :cool:

I had hoped the content of my post was entirely clear, but I respect your right to disagree with what I posted, just as the OP says they disagree with the terms of the non-molestation order they say they have been served, but that does not make either null and void.

Savvy_Sue wrote: »

Call me suspicious, but is it definitely a genuine court order?

The OP doesn't mention any appeal - those who know about such things seem to suggest one should be possible.

Rather feel OP cannot afford NOT to have a solicitor!

Glatter wrote: »

You are right to be suspicious.

The OP has not stated the order was made without notice
(I understand this forum expects us to post in English, as indeed is the expectation nowadays within the legal profession, especially when in the presence of, or otherwise communicating with, lay persons) - yes they have - "1 week ago I get a court order delivered by hand, opened it thinking it was about the up and coming divorce to find it's a non molestation order against me for harrassment and I'm not aloud to contact her or go with 100m of her or her property." - if there was a hearing the order would be given at the hearing and the OP would know about it.

It would only be appropriate to make such an order made without notice, if:
a) it is deemed necessary to grant without any delay making such notice impossible, or
b) there is a real risk that, with notice, the respondent, may further molest the applicant in an attempt encourage the abandonment of the application.



Judges err on the side of caution when making ex parte orders as the respondent has the opportunity to dispute it. The only requisite is that the claimant makes the appropriate statements. Given I've been there and seen what the statement was which granted my ex a non-mol, and subsequently I contested this and won, I know the standard is low.

In this case, where admittedly we only have the evidence of the respondent, the OP claims only to have visited and communicated with his wife for the purposes of securing some access to his children, and this order has come as somewhat of a surprise. That, on the face of it, would not appear to be a case where an application without notice would be necessary nor appropriate. - funnily enough, it's quite common for people to lie. and having a non-mol means legal aid funding for any child arrangement proceedings, there is a pretty damning reason to get a non-mol. There is no finding of fact in a without notice applications. A statement is provided to the judge, who then issues the order on the basis of that statement.

Of course, the underlying issue here is that the court would have made their decision based on the evidence of the applicant, and therefore not have heard from the respondent. - indeed

Where a court makes such an order against the respondent without notice, such an order must include:
1. the fact it was was made in the absence of the respondent, that it was made only on the evidence of the applicant, and that no finding of fact has been established - Agreed
2. a return date, time & location (essentially a hearing where the respondent can attend and put their case forward to the court) within 14 days of the order is included. - agreed
3. the order must also contain a statement regarding the right to apply to have the order set aside or varied. Furthermore this must include that there is no requirement to await the return date stated. This is important, as such an application would normally need to have been made within 7 days of the order. - agreed

The OP does not seem to have been given any of this based on lack of mentioning any of it in their OP; indeed the OP admits 7 days have now elapsed from the original date of the order. - that is a concern of mine also

If the OP genuinely cannot afford legal representation, then legal aid may be available, although that will take weeks to have approved, so would require a legal representative to act in advance of funding approval (which of course it may not be), or an adjournment to be requested.
Legal representation in court is not always necessary; indeed a court cannot object to anyone wishing to rtepresent themselves in court. - agreed, but it's worth paying for considering the alternative is malicious reporting of breaches and the cost of any child arrangement hearings
A solicitor will probably be able to advise what the OP should do through an initial interview, assuming the OP goes well prepared with all the facts to hand, including whether representation at court is advised - such an initial interview is often given free of charge or for a nominal fee (refer to the CAB for details of who offer this locally)
In the event legal aid is not available to the OP, representation in court is advised, and the OP is not in a position to pay, it may be possible to find someone to provide this without charge (that's 'pro bono' to those who like to confuse others by using a langauge hardly anyone else ever uses )