.webp)
.png)
One topic in family law which we haven’t discussed much at all is the matter of protection orders (also called “restraining orders,” civil protection orders or CPOs, etc.). CPOs are relatively common, as spouses frequently requested these orders to protect themselves from harassment, physical or emotional abuse, and to guarantee security and safety during challenging times. CPOs are serious instruments: when a judge puts one of these orders in place, violating the order is a severe offense, and may lead to fines and even incarceration. For this reason, these orders aren’t granted in all instances, but require a relatively high hurdle to obtain. Furthermore, when it comes to extensions on these orders, the bar is generally higher, as D.C. courts (and those in Maryland as well) prefer to remove these orders provided that there isn’t sufficient evidence to establish “good cause.”
In the recent case of McKenzie v. Persaud (2025), an ex-wife’s attempt at an extension was rejected, even though the original order was based on relatively serious issues (i.e. physical abuse, emotional abuse). Let’s examine this case in detail to get a sense of how the extension process works in D.C. for CPOs.
Facts of the Case
The couple in this case lived in Guyana for a period of time before relocating to D.C. While in Guyana, the wife claimed that the husband had been highly abusive – she claimed that he had been physically, sexually, and also emotionally abusive. When the couple transferred to D.C., the wife obtained the initial CPO in February of 2020 after presenting satisfactory evidence of the abuse in Guyana. Then, in 2021, this CPO was extended for a first time after the wife presented additional evidence on other instances of abuse, such as threats.
The wife made another request for an extension based on multiple claims. She stated that she continued to be in fear of the husband, and also that the intensity of the ongoing custody battle provided grounds for the extension. The trial court rejected this second extension request, holding that the wife had failed to present evidence of any new problematic behaviors, or evidence that the previous behaviors were continuing. The case then proceeded to the appellate division for further review.
Ruling & Analysis
On review, the appellate court (D.C. Court of Appeals) concluded that, since no new evidence had been presented, and there had been no new violations of the order, the wife had indeed failed to satisfy the burden to obtain the extension. Ultimately, this case came down to the simple fact that the husband simply hadn’t engaged in any problematic behaviors (at least none which could be documented) since the previous extension: while the court acknowledged the record which showed the past wrongdoings, and acknowledged the difficulties associated with the custody battle, these things weren’t adequate to yield the extension.
In its analysis, the court carefully examined all the relevant facts and circumstances – conducting a “global approach” or considering the “entire mosaic” of the relationship – with reference to the “good cause” standard under D.C. Code Section 16-1005(d-1). The key thing is that the good cause requirement under this section requires independent evidence to fulfill: courts cannot consider this requirement satisfied merely by referencing the same evidence which was used to fulfill the original order or a prior extension. Even though the wife may have still feared her ex-husband, this by itself doesn’t constitute new or independent evidence. For the extension to be granted, the husband would have needed to engage in new behaviors in between the first extension and the request for a second extension.
Contact the Murphy Law Firm for Additional Resources
Readers who want to learn more about D.C. protection orders, extending protection orders already in place, extension limits, the basics of the D.C. divorce process in general, or any other pertinent family law matter, contact one of the family law lawyers at the Murphy Law Firm today by calling 240-219-1187.
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
