QLD DVO - Close Proximity Question

[KMac83]

Hi All, Where a DVO is applicable, can the aggrieved choose when they can be within close proximity of the respondent? What should the respondent do in that scenario in order to ensure they are abiding by the law?

Scenario:
Shared care of children (aggrieved and respondent are parents); one of the children plays a team sport. When the respondent has care of the children and is responsible for the child attending the sporting event, the aggrieved also attends the sporting event and usually situates themselves within 20m of the respondent.
Is it the responsibility of the respondent to leave the area so that they are not in breach of the DVO?
When the aggrieved has care of the children, the respondent does not attend the sporting event.

 

[Atticus]

Where a DVO is applicable, can the aggrieved choose when they can be within close proximity of the respondent? What should the respondent do in that scenario in order to ensure they are abiding by the law?

Probably helpful if the aggrieved parent alters their normal routine a bit regarding attending sporting events when the child is the care of the respondent ... That said, the onus is always on the respondent to abide by the conditions of the DVO served on them ... Conditions vary. ...

What does the DVO say about distances that must be maintained

 

[KMac83]

As the new partner of the respondent, I understand that the DVO is bogus and was applied for to aid the mediation/negotiation process of the separation in their favor. I have not asked particulars about the DVO in relation to distance, however I am concerned that the aggrieved if upset about a different parenting conflict perhaps (they send an email complaining about something often after respondent/our care), that they will force a DVO breach by showing up to a sporting event, report it and get the respondent in trouble. From what I understand about the aggrieved's personality, this possibility is entirely plausible and (to specifically answer your question Atticus) they would not welcome a change in their behavior.
If anything, I am hoping that the sheer fact that the aggrieved is showing up to these events, gives weight to the claim that the DVO is bogus and if anything were to eventuate (my understanding is that the aggrieved will always be sided with??) that this would help evidence that the respondent is only trying to do the right thing. After all, if it were me, I would be avoiding the respondent if the claims the DVO were based on, were true.
Are there any steps that the respondent should be doing to protect themselves in these situations?

 

[KMac83]

Probably helpful if the aggrieved parent alters their normal routine a bit regarding attending sporting events when the child is the care of the respondent ... That said, the onus is always on the respondent to abide by the conditions of the DVO served on them ... Conditions vary. ...

What does the DVO say about distances that must be maintained

Also - Thank you for your reply Atticus. You replied to a couple of my personal queries over the years, which helped me navigate my separation. Your words were (and are) very much appreciated!

 

[Atticus]

I have not asked particulars about the DVO in relation to distance,

Probably worth checking exactly what distance restrictions there are on the order & keep a bit more then that if she continues to place herself within the restricted distance.... Shouldn't have to, but honestly not worth the risk for your partner.

I am concerned that the aggrieved if upset about a different parenting conflict perhaps (they send an email complaining about something often after respondent/our care), that they will force a DVO breach by showing up to a sporting event, report it and get the respondent in trouble

Read this >>>> DOMESTIC AND FAMILY VIOLENCE PROTECTION ACT 2012 - SECT 180 Aggrieved or named person not guilty of offence

Basically, as the aggrieved person, she is immune from any charge or wrongdoing of even knowingly & willfully placing your partner in a position that causes a breach.... So regardless of how nice & sincere she may seem, your partner should not respond to her in ANY way contrary to the conditions of the order

 

[Tim W]

If the PINOP is placing themselves "within range" of the respondent
by choice (or indeed, through recklessness) then there are two things to consider.

1. Multiple occurrences of the PINOP "being within range",
in circumstances where it might reasonably be supposed
that the PINOP was aware of the presence of the respondent
and didn't do anything about it/ had no problem with it,
can provide good to pretty good grounds for an application to have the order rescinded.
-> Conduct suggesting no reasonable apprehension of violence.

2. In strict literal terms, the order applies pretty well regardless of the conduct of the PINOP.
That being said, the courts can be... impatient... with situations where
a person (mis)uses a proximity condition to "bait" or "provoke" the respondent,
or to manufacture a technical breach of that condition.
An example is when a PINOP repeatedly moves "into range" so that
the respondent is forced to move, and move, and move, or indeed, to leave a place,
so as not to be open to a malicious allegation of breach.

 

[KMac83]

If the PINOP is placing themselves "within range" of the respondent
by choice (or indeed, through recklessness) then there are two things to consider.

1. Multiple occurrences of the PINOP "being within range",
in circumstances where it might reasonably be supposed
that the PINOP was aware of the presence of the respondent
and didn't do anything about it/ had no problem with it,
can provide good to pretty good grounds for an application to have the order rescinded.
-> Conduct suggesting no reasonable apprehension of violence.

2. In strict literal terms, the order applies pretty well regardless of the conduct of the PINOP.
That being said, the courts can be... impatient... with situations where
a person (mis)uses a proximity condition to "bait" or "provoke" the respondent,
or to manufacture a technical breach of that condition.
An example is when a PINOP repeatedly moves "into range" so that
the respondent is forced to move, and move, and move, or indeed, to leave a place,
so as not to be open to an malicious allegation of breach.

Thank you! Pleased to hear!