Editing Restraining order (section)

==Burden of proof and misuse==
The [[Legal burden of proof|standard of proof]] required to obtain a restraining order can vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but it is generally lower than the standard of [[Reasonable doubt|beyond a reasonable doubt]] required in criminal trials.  Many US states—such as [[Oregon]] and [[Pennsylvania]]—use a standard of [[Legal burden of proof#Preponderance of the evidence|preponderance of the evidence]].  Other states use different standards, such as [[Wisconsin]], which require that restraining orders be based on "reasonable grounds".<ref>{{cite web|author=University of Baltimore School of Law Family Law Clinic|url=http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/migrated/domviol/pdfs/Standards_of_Proof_by_State.authcheckdam.pdf|title=Standards of Proof for Domestic Violence Civil Protection Orders (CPOs) By State|publisher=American Bar Association Commission on Domestic Violence|date=June 2009}}</ref>

Judges have some incentives to err on the side of granting restraining orders. If a judge grants a restraining order against someone who might not warrant it, typically the only repercussion is that the defendant might appeal the order. If, however, the judge denies a restraining order and the plaintiff is killed or injured, poor publicity and an enraged community reaction may harm the jurist's career.<ref name=hidden>{{cite journal|title=Erring on the Side of Hidden Harm: The Granting of Domestic Violence Restraining Orders|author=Heleniak, David N.|date=2010|volume=1|number=2|publisher=Springer|journal=Partner Abuse|pages=220–229|url=http://www.mediaradar.org/docs/RADARsignatureReport-ErringOnTheSideOfHiddenHarm.pdf|doi=10.1891/1946-6560.1.2.220|citeseerx=10.1.1.694.8750|s2cid=71884596}}</ref><ref name=biting/>

Colorado's statute inverts the standard court procedures and [[due process]], providing that after the court issues an ''ex parte'' order, the defendant must "appear before the court at a specific time and date and . . . show cause, if any, why said temporary civil protection order should not be made permanent".<ref>Colorado Revised Statutes Annotated § 13-14-102(5)</ref> That is, Colorado courts place the [[Legal burden of proof|burden of proof]] on the accused to establish his or her innocence, rather than requiring the accuser to prove his or her case. Hawaii similarly requires the defendant to prove his or her own innocence.<ref>Hawaii Revised Statutes Annotated § 586-5(b)</ref>

The low burden of proof for restraining orders has led to some high-profile cases involving [[Stalking|stalkers]] of celebrities obtaining restraining orders against their targets. For example, in 2005 a [[New Mexico]] judge issued a restraining order against [[New York City]]-based TV host [[David Letterman]] after a woman made claims of abuse and harassment, including allegations that Letterman had spoken to her via coded messages on his TV show. The judge later admitted that he granted the restraining order not on the merits of the case, but because the petitioner had completely filled out the required paperwork.<ref name="HuffPost">{{cite web|url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/liz-mandarano/the-worst-thing-a-woman-c_b_837636.html|title=The Worst Thing A Woman Can Do In Divorce Proceedings - The Abuse Of Orders of Protection|author=Mandarano, Liz|publisher=Huffington Post|date=13 April 2011}}</ref>

Some attorneys have criticized the use of restraining orders on the theory that parties to a divorce may file such orders to gain tactical advantages, rather than out of a legitimate fear of harm. Liz Mandarano, an attorney who specializes in family and matrimonial law, speculates that divorce attorneys are incentivized to push for restraining orders because such orders force all communications to go through the parties' lawyers and may prolong the legal struggle.<ref name="HuffPost" /> Some attorneys offer to have restraining orders dropped in exchange for financial concessions in such proceedings.{{Citation needed|reason=Claim is not substantiated by the reference in the prior sentence. Though "some attorneys" is the phonetically weak form, and the claim is plausible, it reads as baldly speculative without a reference. Need to provide at least one example of an attorney having made such an offer.|date=September 2018}}