 |
| Service will only get more complicated from here |
By Amy Davis
Sometimes, when relationships go awry, one party will seek a “relief from abuse” order, more commonly known in lawerly circles as an RFA. The legalities behind receiving an RFA are neither here nor there, but the point is that sometimes a person can have one against them and not know because they were never “served” with a copy. Service is the issue with this case.
Defendant had been in a relationship with T.M. and they had a child together. The evidence showed that he had assaulted T.M. and stalked her, so in October 2012, she received an abuse prevention order. Defendant was then incarcerated in Vermont until April 2014.
Before he was released, T.M. asked for a protection order in New Hampshire where she lived. The New Hampshire court issued a temporary order and held a final hearing in June 2014. Defendant, T.M., and their attorneys attended the hearing. At the end of the hearing, the Court indicated it would issue a permanent protection order, and it did.
According to the return of service, the Final Order was served to Defendant’s attorney and was in effect through June 12, 2014 through June 12, 2015. The order prohibited Defendant from having any contact with T.M., including third party contact, and coming within 300 feet of T.M. Custody and visitation were to be governed by the existing Vermont orders, but any further litigation would be in New Hampshire.
Defendant was charged for violating the order with the State alleging that on June 30, 2014, the Defendant “hollered” at T.M. in the parking lot of the courthouse when they arrived on a motion related to their child support order. T.M. agreed to speak with Defendant with a court officer thirty feet away. Defendant was charged with two counts of violating the order – the first for having contact with T.M. and the second for being within 300 feet. When arrested, Defendant told the officer he thought the order was only valid in New Hampshire.
Defendant argues that the charges should be dismissed because the State failed to prove the existence of an enforceable abuse prevention order because the State did not prove the order was validly served.
The State says that the Final Order was served on Defendant’s attorney in New Hampshire, that the New Hampshire court indicated orally to Defendant that a final order would issue, so the Defendant had notice.
Reviewing de novo, SCOV doesn’t buy the State’s argument. The law is that the State must show that the order was properly served. If an abuse prevention order is issued in another State, it may be enforced in Vermont if four requirements are met in accordance with subsection(c) of this statute. Defendant must receive notice of the order that complies with New Hampshire’s requirements. New Hampshire requires that temporary orders must be served by a peace officer and subsequent orders shall be sent to the defendant’s last address of record. Because there was no evidence to support proof of service through mail, the State did not meet its burden, and SCOV reverses.
Comments
Post a Comment