View Single Post
Old April 19, 2019, 12:48 PM   #60
Senior Member
Join Date: October 19, 2016
Posts: 185
The confusion as to who has the burden of proof may stem from confusing different hearings. The burden of proof indeed lies with the respondent to establish by clear and convincing that they no longer pose a significant risk in order to terminate a previously issued extreme risk protection order. However, the burden is on the petitioner at the hearing seeking issuance of the order.

Think of it this way.

Hearing 1 is ex parte. Petitioner has burden of proving probable cause for issuance of a temporary order.

Hearing 2. Petitioner has burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence for a one year order. [actually 364 days but who is counting]

Hearing 3. During the term of the order the respondent seeking to terminate the extreme risk protective order the burden shifts to the respondent to show by C&C evidence that they no longer pose a significant risk.

Renewal Hearings. Should the petitioner move to renew an expiring termination order, it will be renewed if there be C&C evidence of a continuing risk.
dreaming is offline  
Page generated in 0.03048 seconds with 8 queries