Restraining Order Case Review: Protecting the Bond Between Grandparents and Grandchildren

For our client A.D. and his wife D.D., the prospect of a restraining order carried consequences far beyond the courtroom. They feared losing the everyday experiences that defined their relationship with their grandchildren: attending games, cheering from the sidelines, celebrating birthdays, and being dependable sources of support through a difficult family separation.

Their concern was that the restraining-order process was being used to pursue longstanding grievances -and that the children would bear the cost.

The dispute arose from a confrontation surrounding a birthday pickup. A.D. was helping with the family’s birthday preparations when an argument developed between him and the children’s father. The father presented that encounter, together with older disagreements, as grounds for restricting A.D.’s contact with him. Because both men attended the children’s sporting events, such restrictions threatened to interfere with A.D.’s ability to participate in an important part of his grandchildren’s lives. The plaintiff’s own affidavit acknowledged A.D.’s consistent attendance at those events.

Our defense examined the encounter in its full context. Cross-examination revealed the plaintiff’s role in instigating the confrontation and undermined his claim that he had an objectively reasonable concern for his safety. It also exposed how unresolved adult grievances had become entangled with the children’s activities and family relationships.

We addressed A.D.’s conduct candidly. Opening the vehicle door and engaging in an angry exchange were actions he could reasonably regret in hindsight. Those facts deserved scrutiny. The question before the court, however, required an assessment of whether the evidence established a legally sufficient basis for a restraining order. For a claim based on fear of imminent serious physical harm, the fear must be reasonable in light of the circumstances.

The police reports recorded both parties’ statements that there had been no physical contact. That fact alone did not resolve the case, but it formed part of the circumstances against which the plaintiff’s allegations had to be tested. Taken together with the testimony developed through cross-examination, the evidence supported our position that this regrettable confrontation did not justify the relief sought.

The grandparents’ relationship with the children gave the case particular human significance. Their regular presence at games and family occasions represented years of affection, encouragement, and practical support. Their fear was that a dispute among adults would deprive the children of that continuity and place them once again in the middle of a conflict they had not created.

Our defense brought both the evidence and those consequences into focus. It demonstrated why a moment of poor judgment, assessed in its actual context, was insufficient to justify an order that could disrupt the children’s special bond with their grandparents.