In most cases, it makes sense to make a quick initial determination about whether your client’s abusive former partner will contest a protective order. In some cases, they will agree to the order that you have requested. This scenario is less likely in cases that involve ancillary claims for support and/or child custody. To negotiate effectively, you should consult with your client before court about the possibility of settlement and determine what, if any, issues are subject to negotiation. For example, you should know in advance what type of supervised visitation arrangements your client wants so that any negotiated order can include all necessary specifics. In general, follow these rules when negotiating with the other side:
- Do not negotiate in front of your client.
- Do not agree to a mutual injunction.
- Do not agree to an “injunction” that does not go into the LPOR. Do not assume that the order can be converted to a registry order in the future should it become necessary.1
- Do not agree to custodial arrangements or visitation without advising your client about the effects on future custody litigation under the Post-Separation Family Violence Relief Act.
- Do not give a pro se defendant legal advice. This means you should not answer questions such as “If I agree to this, does it mean I am admitting to the abuse?” or “How does this affect my guns?” Refer the defendant to the court for questions.
- Be cautious about offers to “pay” for the client’s cell phone. If the phone remains in the abusive party’s name, he may be able to activate GPS tracking services or monitor her communications.
Consent agreements must be signed by the court so that the abusive party may be held in contempt for violation.2 Be sure to read the consent agreement in full into the record so that the court can make a clear record that each party has read the order and its provisions fully, understands the order, and agrees to its terms.3
- 1See generally Branstetter v. Purohit, 2006-1435, pp. 4–6 (La. App. 4 Cir. 5/2/07), 958 So. 2d 740, 743–44 (holding that trial court erred when it converted a non-registry injunction entered by consent into a registry injunction without notice in a subsequent contempt proceeding).
- 2See La. R.S. 46:2136.
- 3See McInnis v. McInnis, 38,748-CA (La. App. 2 Cir. 8/14/04), 880 So. 2d 240, 244 (citing Alogdon v. Guertin, 97-CA-0235 (La. App. 4 Cir. 10/1/97), 701 So. 2d 480) (finding consent judgment read into record becomes legal judgment even if not reduced to writing).