Signs You May Need a Protective Order Against an Abusive Ex-Spouse in Maryland

Published on
February 29, 2024
Written by
Angel Murphy, Esq
Category
Divorce

It may not be the most common phenomenon, but it happens now and then: sometimes Marylanders need to take out a restraining order (or “protection order,” “no contact order,” etc.) against an abusive ex-spouse. Protective orders are certainly not pleasant things, but in some cases they may be necessary in order to provide a level of security when an ex-spouse behaves in an unacceptable fashion. Restraining orders shouldn’t be handled without a serious mindset; when you obtain an order, you’re making a powerful statement, and you’re putting up a very powerful boundary between you and your ex-spouse. Here are a few signs which show you may need to take out a restraining order against an abusive ex-spouse. These aren’t the only signs, but just a few of the more clear signs an order might be in your best interests.

#1: There is a History of Physical / Emotional Abuse Toward You

One of the clearest signs a protective order may be necessary is a history of physical or emotional abuse toward you. If you suffered physical or emotional abuse during the marriage, there is good reason to believe that this behavior may escalate following a divorce. As most people know, divorce tends to accentuate negative tendencies rather than subdue them. When you file for an order, you will need to provide evidence to substantiate your claim that an order is necessary. Simply put, a history of physical or emotional abuse is among the most powerful forms of evidence after a more recent incident occurs close in time to the filing.

#2: There is a History of Physical / Emotional Abuse Toward Your Children

This is another very clear sign that a protective order might be in your best interests. If your ex-spouse has ever engaged in physically or emotionally abusive behavior toward your children, this is powerful evidence to support the need for a restraining order. And, just as with behavior directed toward you, behavior directed toward your children can quickly escalate after a divorce has taken place and a more recent incident has occured.

#3: There is a History of Alcohol / Substance Abuse

Another sign that a protective order might be needed is a history of alcohol or illicit substance abuse on the part of your ex-spouse. The reason for this is that alcohol or substance abuse problems tend to reduce a person’s inhibitions regarding boundaries, and the situation will likely become even worse following a divorce. If your ex-spouse has a history of alcohol or substance abuse problems, but no other problematic behavior, this alone may not suffice to obtain a restraining order. But, if this problem is seen in conjunction with other troubling behavior, it can provide important evidence to substantiate the need for an order. 

#4: There is a History of Disrespect for Boundaries

If your ex-spouse has a history of disrespecting interpersonal boundaries – i.e. sending inappropriate text or email messages, disrespecting past lovers, etc. –then this may show a need for a protective order after a divorce. Again, divorce tends to exacerbate preexisting issues; following divorce, there is plenty of reason to believe that this state of affairs will worsen rather than improve. If you know your ex-spouse has a problem respecting your boundaries, and you can demonstrate that with concrete examples from the past, this may be sufficient to procure an order.

Contact the Murphy Law Firm for More Information

If you would like more information on this topic, or another related matter, reach out to one of the leading attorneys at the Murphy Law Firm today by calling 240-219-8825.

Angel Murphy

Personable. Passionate. Persistent.

Divorce, Restraining, Abuse, Restraining Order, Protection Order, Domestic Abuse, Divorce, Maryland Law, Emotional Abuse, Physical Abuse, Substance Abuse, Boundaries

Subscribe to our newsletter

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.

Articles & Resources

March 4, 2024

Rudnick v. Rudnick (2023) & Unconscionability in Maryland Prenuptial Agreements

In Rudnick v. Rudnick (2023), a prenuptial agreement signed in 1992 became the subject of dispute during the couple's divorce in 2019. The agreement, which prohibited the division of assets or alimony, was initially considered fair but was deemed unconscionable at the time of enforcement. Massachusetts law, where the case arose, applied an unconscionability analysis at the time of enforcement. The courts ruled in favor of the wife, highlighting the importance of skilled legal representation well-versed in relevant state laws.

April 1, 2024

Carrington v. Richards (2017) & the Role of Participation in Custody Modification

In Carrington v. Richards (2017), a custody battle turned tragic due to the mother's failure to participate in court proceedings. Initially seeking full custody of their son, the father was awarded sole custody when the mother failed to appear at the final hearing. Despite subsequent attempts to overturn the decision, the mother's non-compliance with court orders and absence from proceedings hindered her case. Ultimately, the father's custody was affirmed, but the case took a devastating turn when the mother shot and wounded the father. This case underscores the importance of active participation in custody proceedings and the serious consequences of non-compliance.

March 29, 2024

Wiles v. Wiles (2017) & Modifying Alimony to Obtain a Longer Payment Period

In Wiles v. Wiles (2017), a divorced couple faced a dispute over alimony modification. Initially granted alimony for a limited duration, the ex-wife sought to extend the payments indefinitely and increase the monthly amount. Despite the ex-husband's opposition, the trial court granted the modification based on the ex-wife's claim of a change in circumstances. On appeal, the appellate division upheld the decision, emphasizing the need for a "material" change in circumstances to justify altering the alimony award, which would otherwise result in a harsh or inequitable outcome.

March 22, 2024

Hernandez v. Matiendo (2017) & the Impact of Previous Litigation on Visitation Modification

In family law, while the concept of "double jeopardy" may not apply, courts generally avoid relitigating settled issues without a change in circumstances. This principle was highlighted in the case of Hernandez v. Matiendo (2017), where a mother sought to modify a visitation order established in a Puerto Rican court. Despite her claims of sexual abuse, the Maryland court upheld the original order, emphasizing that the issue had already been litigated in Puerto Rico.

March 25, 2024

Mullen v. Robbins (2017) & How Settlement Agreements Impact Alimony Modification

In the case of Mullen v. Robbins (2017), a high-earning physician learned the importance of careful contract language when dealing with private agreements during divorce. Despite reaching a private agreement on alimony, the ex-wife sought modification in court citing a change in circumstances due to health issues. The trial court ruled in her favor, emphasizing the need for a "material change in circumstances" to modify private agreements. The appellate division upheld the ruling, highlighting the importance of precise contract language in determining modifiability.