Louisiana has multiple civil statutes under which a person may seek relief from domestic abuse by petitioning a court for a protective order or injunction:

• Protection from Family Violence Act, Part II, La. R.S. 46:2131–2143 (the Domestic Abuse Assistance Act), and La. R.S. 46:2151, the Protection from Dating Violence Act, which applies the remedies of the Domestic Abuse Assistance Act to certain dating relationships.
• Protection from Stalking Act, La. R.S. 46:2171-2174.
• Protection for Victims of Sexual Assault Act, La. R.S. 46:2181-2188.
• Post-Separation Family Violence Relief Act, La. R.S. 9:361–369.
• Injunction against Abuse Ancillary to Divorce, La. R.S. 9:372–372.1.
• Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order, La. C.C.P. art. 3601–3612.
• Children’s Code, Chapter 8, La. Ch.C. art. 1564–1575.
• Civil Code Ancillaries, Part V, La. R.S. 9:575, protecting adult parents or grandparents from abuse by adult children or grandchildren.

Most petitioners seeking a protective order in Louisiana do so under the Domestic Abuse Assistance Act. The Domestic Abuse Assistance Act authorizes broad relief to petitioners in need of protection from abuse, including temporary restraining orders and protective orders that award relief such as temporary custody, temporary housing, temporary use of vehicles, and temporary financial support. Permanent or indefinite injunctions against abuse and harassment (not including the ancillary relief described above) are available under the Domestic Abuse Assistance Act, the Post-Separation Family Violence Relief Act1  or by request for an Injunction Ancillary to Divorce.2

• 1La. R.S. 9:361–69.
• 2La. R.S. 9:372.

When discussing legal options with clients, it is important to explain the differences between orders of protection issued by civil courts and those issued by criminal courts. Protective orders issued in both civil and criminal courts are enforceable by law enforcement the same way, and it is a crime to violate either of them.1  But “stay away” orders issued by criminal courts cannot include important legal remedies that many survivors need because criminal courts do not have subject matter jurisdiction over issues such as child custody, child and spousal support, and possession of a jointly used or owned residence or vehicle. So, even a victim who has a valid criminal stay away order in place may also need a civil protective order that includes some of these remedies. Moreover, many clients seeking protection feel distrustful of the criminal legal system and simply prefer to pursue civil orders of protection rather than to participate in a criminal legal case against an abusive partner.

It is important that lawyers for survivors check the status and terms of any protective order that may be associated with a criminal case against the abusive party. The expiration of a criminal stay away order may trigger the need for a civil protective order. In some cases, it may be necessary to advocate with the district attorney for protection that the client may want and is entitled to under the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Criminal courts may issue “stay away” orders pursuant to peace bonds, bail restrictions, conditions of release, or conditions of probation and sentencing orders.2  In domestic violence, stalking, and sexual assault cases, criminal courts are required to issue stay away orders as a condition of bail if the court determines that the defendant poses a threat or danger to the victim; the orders should remain in place until sentencing.3  In stalking cases, La. R.S. 14:40.2 specifically authorizes, and in the case of probation requires, that criminal courts issue protective orders to stalking victims either indefinitely or for a fixed period up to 18 months upon sentencing of the defendant.4

These criminal “stay away” orders expire at various stages of a criminal case, such as when the prosecution is dismissed, the probation is completed, or the case is otherwise resolved. Victims often receive conflicting information from the district attorney or the criminal court about when these orders expire. Moreover, prosecutors may not actively pursue them, and many victims do not even know whether an order exists or is enforceable. Civil lawyers should help clients ascertain what criminal court orders are in place and for how long.

• 1La. R.S. 14:79.
• 2La. C.Cr.P. arts. 26, 320, 895, 871.1.
• 3La. C.Cr.P. art. 320(G), (L).
• 4La. R.S.14:40.2(F)(3)(a).

The Louisiana Protective Order Registry (LPOR) is a statewide database for all court orders that prohibit abuse against a current or former spouse, dating partner, family or household member, and victims of stalking and sexual assault. All temporary restraining orders or protective orders prohibiting a person from harming a family member, household member, or dating partner, including orders entered under Louisiana’s general civil injunction statute, must be immediately entered on a Uniform Abuse Prevention Order Registry form, and forwarded to the clerk of court, who must file the order with the Louisiana Protective Order Registry no later than the following day.1  This requirement is a key safety and enforcement feature for victims of domestic violence. Orders that are not prepared on the uniform order form and that are not entered into the Protective Order Registry are more difficult to enforce because law enforcement may have difficulty verifying the order’s validity, may not have clear authority to enforce them, and are sometimes less responsive to non-registry orders. Also, it is easier for abusive partners to purchase guns in violation of the law if a protective order is not in the registry.2  Protective Order Registry forms are available on the Louisiana Supreme Court’s website.3  Note that the Registry has a variety of different LPOR forms that differ based upon what statute the petitioner is filing under, and whether the filing is an original petitioner or a petition-in-reconvention.

Even though the Registry helps ensure that orders are available to law enforcement, it is important that victims also retain a physical, certified copy of their protective order. Occasionally, orders are not timely submitted to the Registry by the clerk’s office, or the Registry could have technological difficulty or hurricane-related problems. In circumstances like these, having a physical copy of an order to show police can be critical for safety and enforcement.

• 1La. C.C.P. art. 3607.1.
• 2In February 2023, the United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the federal law prohibited firearms possession by individuals subject to a protective order violated the Second Amendment. United States v. Rahimi, 61 F.4th 443 (5th Cir. 2023). While this result calls into to question the constitutionality of Louisiana’s similar ban on firearms possession, as of this writing, the Louisiana statute has not been declared unconstitutional and remains in force.
• 3LPOR Forms, La. Sup. Ct.

Mutual protective orders cannot be granted unless both parties have filed a petition. A protective order may not be granted to a party who has not requested one by written petition because due process requires reasonable notice to a party that an order may be issued against them.1

Lawyers untrained in intimate partner violence often view mutual orders of protection as reasonable resolutions to these cases. For the most part, they are not. Mutual injunctions are harmful and sometimes dangerous for victims. They increase safety risks and undermine important legal rights regarding child custody, support, and divorce. Some of the problems with mutual orders include: (1) mutual orders discourage victims from calling police or enforcing their orders by making them fearful of, and vulnerable to, arrest; (2) mutual orders become a tool for abusers to harass victims through contempt proceedings and arrests; and (3) mutual orders make it difficult for law enforcement to enforce orders and make predominate aggressor determinations.

In addition to these serious enforcement and safety concerns, mutual orders also disadvantage victims of abuse in future litigation. Because mutual orders imply equally abusive behavior by the parties, they can (1) make it difficult for victims to defend against fault allegations that bar them from obtaining final spousal support; and (2) cause victims to lose custodial presumptions in favor of an abused parent under the Post-Separation Family Violence Relief Act and even risk having the custodial presumption imposed against them.

Some attorneys will propose to resolve a protective order case by “dismissing” the Petition for Protection from Abuse and entering a mutual injunction against abuse and harassment that does not go into the Protective Order Registry. But the Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure requires that even those orders be immediately reduced to a Louisiana Protective Order Registry form and submitted to the registry by the clerk of court.2  Most of the problems discussed above also apply to these orders. Victims who agree to mutual injunctions of this nature are often not advised of the many potential risks associated with them, including the legal implications for future custody litigation and the safety implications of enforcement problems. Far more often than not, mutual injunctions present more risks than benefits to survivors.

• 1Bays v. Bays, 2000-C-1727, pp. 6–7 (La. 2/21/01), 779 So. 2d 754, 757–59; see Lee v. Smith, 08-CA-455, p. 6 (La. App. 5 Cir. 12/16/08), 4 So. 3d 100, 104; Branstetter v. Purohit, 2006-CA-1435, p. 5 (La. App. 4 Cir. 5/2/07), 958 So. 2d 740, 744.
• 2La. C.C.P. art. 3607.1.

An abusive partner who files a baseless petition can be cast with costs, if the court determines the petition was frivolous.1  A party who files a petition for an improper purpose may also be sanctioned under La. C.C.P. art. 863.2  In Woods v. Woods, the court affirmed sanctions against a petitioner-husband who used his education and experience as an attorney to wage war on his wife by filing a baseless petition against abuse.3

• 1La. R.S. 46:2136.1(B).
• 2See Lassair ex rel. T.P.J. v. Paul, 2022-0320 (La. App. 4 Cir. 12/14/22), 353 So. 3d 1048, 1054 (holding that court cannot cast costs to petition without a finding that petition was frivolous); Koerner v. Monju, 2016-487 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2/8/17), 210 So. 3d 935, 936; Rogers v. Rogers, 2019-0143 (La. App. 1 Cir. 9/27/19), 287 So. 3d 749, 751; Woods v. Woods, 43,182-CA, p. 15 (La. App. 2 Cir. 6/11/08), 987 So. 2d 339, 347–48.
• 3Woods, 987 So. 2d at 347–48.