When parties first separate, it may be necessary to enter restraining orders prohibiting certain conduct. Especially in cases where domestic violence has occurred, or in contested child custody actions, such orders may be unavoidable.

To get an idea of how the statutory language works on this issue, please see Seattle child custody and restraining orders.

Restraining orders regarding child custody can do many things, including: prohibiting contact between parents, restraining contact between one of the parents and a child, sale or other transfer of assets, harassment, changing insurance policy terms, or other detrimental conduct. However, the court has the power to enter fairly specific terms in restraining orders to attend the specific needs and facts of a particular case, and it will act on this to when justice requires. For example, the court may order supervised visitation between parents and children pursuant to a restraining order.

It is possible to obtain restraining orders regarding child custody with or without giving notice to the other party. When the restrained party is not provided notice—an “Ex Parte” action—the order can be entered on an emergency basis. The court will enter an order absent the restrained person if sufficient evidence is presented that suggests the need to protect the petitioner from harm or to protect assets from being dissipated. However, such orders will not take effect until the other party has been given actual notice. Normally, a return hearing is set for just days after the Ex Parte order is entered so that the restrained party can answer or contest the allegations made by the other party. In cases filed in Superior Court in Seattle, restraining order and child custody hearings are held at the downtown King County Courthouse.

A court deciding child custody and restraining order issues consider the totality of the facts when entering orders. An experienced Seattle child custody lawyer should review the facts of your case, and can advise you as to whether Ex Parte restraining orders would be appropriate.

In most cases, agreed, mutual restraining orders which provide for standard restraints intended to protect the rights of both parties and to maintain the status quo are preferable.