Temporary restraining orders (“TRO”) are nothing to take lightly. There are put into place when a Judge finds that a TRO is necessary to protect the petitioner, or a minor in the same household, from violence that has occurred in the past and may occur in the future. OCGA §19-13-3(b).The TRO is put into place for up to 30 days, at which time it may be extended after a hearing if the petitioner can prove his/her allegations by a preponderance of the evidence. OCGA §19-13-3(c). The TRO can cover many issues, but nearly always orders the respondent to refrain from harassing, communicating with, and interfering with the victim, and also establishes custody and visitation rights for those TROs that deal with children. OCGA §19-13-4(a). If you are served with a TRO, make sure you are clear about what you may and not do under the order so that you do not violate it unintentionally. It is prudent to refrain from any contact with the victim, except as expressly authorized, so long as the TRO is in place.
Tyrese Gibson recently pushed the boundaries of a TRO against him. Tyrese Gibson Admits to Flying Banner Over Daughter’s School Despite Restraining Order, by Elizabeth Leonard and Lindsay Kimble, people.com, October 25, 2017 The TRO was put in place by Tyrese’s ex-wife, Norma, after Tyrese allegedly beat their daughter, Shayla, so hard that she couldn’t sit down. It grants temporary legal and physical custody to Norma and orders Tyrese to stay 100 away from both Norma and Shayla. In addition, it prohibits Tyrese from having any direct or indirect contact with Shayla or Norma. Tyrese: Ex-Wife Runs to Cops After He Shows Daughter Love with Banner, tmz.com, October 24, 2017. Despite the TRO, Tyrese hired a plane to fly a banner over Shayla’s school which read “No matter what, daddy loves you Shayla.” In addition, he sent gifts for Shayla to the school. Norma filed a police report, claiming that his actions are a violation of the TRO. In addition, her attorney accuses Tyrese of witness intimidation since Shayla may be interviewed by the Department of Family and Children’s Services as it relates to this case. For his part, Tyrese believes he did not violate the TRO because there was no personal contact.
Tyrese is likely to lose this argument. The banner and gifts were a clear attempt to contact and communicate with Shayla. Even if he did not personally reach out to her, the gifts were addressed “To Shayla, From Dad” and the wording of banner clearly indicates that Tyrese ordered it for Shayla. These actions are indirect contact which is an obvious and flagrant violation of the TRO for which Tyrese should prepare to be punished.