Louisiana law requires the continued protection of victims during emergencies when courts close for reasons such as hurricanes or the COVID-19 pandemic and extends TROs by operation of law. Under La. C.C.P. Art 3604(c)(2), “in the event that the hearing on the rule for the protective order is continued by the court because of a declared state of emergency made in accordance with R.S. 29:724, any temporary restraining order issued in the matter shall remain in force for five days after the date of conclusion of the state of emergency.” The law further requires that pending protective order hearings be reset first upon the court’s re-opening—within 5 days of the emergency’s conclusion. In other words, protective orders take precedence over all other matters after the emergency ends.

Even though orders that would otherwise expire during court closures are now extended by operation of law, their enforceability can still be confusing to victims, defendants, and police. The LPOR addressed this issue by adding a “Notice to Law Enforcement,” which explains the order’s extension in the event of a state of emergency. But many police are trained to look at the original expiration date and overlook the provision regarding its extension. For example, in some instances during the pandemic, law enforcement allowed abusive spouses back into marital homes under the false belief that the victim’s TRO had expired. Be sure to advise clients about the section of the TRO form that contains the “Notice to Law Enforcement” and explain the order’s continued enforceability during a declared state of emergency. Most officers, once directed to the extension provision, will enforce an order accordingly.

Under La. R.S. 46:2136(F), a protective order may be extended beyond 18 months if the petitioner applies for an extension prior to the order’s expiration and the court holds a hearing on the extension request.1  Presumably, the entire protective order may be extended for another 18 months, and the portion prohibiting harassment, abuse, and interference with the person or employment may be extended indefinitely.2  In determining whether to extend an order under the Domestic Abuse Assistance Act, the trial court enjoys “vast” discretion.3  Although nothing in the law requires a showing that the defendant violated the prior protective order, past failure to abide by a protective order is a proper basis for extending an order of protection.4  Once a protective order expires without having been extended, a petitioner probably cannot get another protective order in the absence of new allegations or evidence.5

Some judges may be willing to extend a protective order but unwilling to extend some of the ancillary relief granted in the original order, such as temporary child custody and spousal support. For this reason, a petitioner who requests an extension should be prepared to file other actions to resolve those issues (if the protective order claims were not raised in an already existing divorce or custody action).

• 1See also Coie v. Coie, 42,077, p. 7 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2/21/07), 948 So. 2d 1276, 1279 (holding the trial court erred by extending terms of expired protective order); Keneker v. Keneker, 579 So. 2d 1083, 1085 (La. App. 5 Cir. 1991) (extending protective orders under the Domestic Abuse Assistance Act must be made prior to expiration of last order).
• 2See Cave v. Cave, 2020-2040, p. 13 (La. App. 1 Cir. 3/25/21), 2021 WL 1134946, at *26 (stating that the permanent injunctions in the appealed protective order against harassment, contact, and going within 100 yards of protected persons does not expire).
• 3Francois v. Francois, 06-712, p. 5 (La. App. 3 Cir. 11/2/06), 941 So. 2d 722, 726; see Aguillard v. Aguillard, 2019-757, p. 19 (La. App. 3 Cir. 7/8/20), 304 So. 3d 473, 484 (stating that trial courts are given wide discretion in deciding whether to issue protective orders); Pierce v. Pierce, 2019-0689, p. 7 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2/21/20), 298 So. 3d 902, 908 (holding that the trial court did not abuse its “vast discretion” by not issuing a protective order).
• 4Francois, 06-712, p. 5, 941 So. 2d at 726; see Cave, 2020-2040, p. 13, 2021 WL 1134946, at *26 (stating that a court may modify non-permanent protective order provisions pursuant to La. R.S. 46:2136(F), in a case in which the rule to extend the protective order alleged violations of provisions of the protective order).
• 5See Clayton v. Abbitt, 44,427, pp. 1–2 (La. App. 2 Cir. 7/1/09), 16 So. 3d 512, 513–14 (reversing second issuance of protective order where it was not supported by new allegations after expiration of the first order).

Either party may move to modify a prior protective order’s substance or duration. But the court may modify an order only after notice to the other party and after a contradictory hearing. Additionally, the statute significantly limits the scope of modifications as follows:

• Substance. A substantive modification may only do two things: (1) exclude any item included in the prior order; and (2) include any item that could have been included in the prior order.1  These limitations preclude an abuser from using the modification process to seek relief he could not have been awarded as a defendant in the original action, e.g., making requests for child custody or a mutual injunction.

• Duration. The court may modify the indefinite effective period of an order after notice and a hearing.2  A defendant’s motion to modify the effective period of an order is subject to strict notice requirements set forth in La. R.S. 46:2136(F)(2)(c).

• 1La. R.S. 46:2136(D).
• 2La. R.S. 46:2136(D)(2), (F)(2)(c).