By way of example: “She” (yes, yes, men can apply for protective orders, but 1) women are the overwhelming number of protective applicants, whether they are genuine victims or maliciously wielding the protective order statute as a weapon; and 2) men are both discouraged from applying for protective orders, and when they do, they are, in a stunning display of sexism, frequently not believed, so we’ll refer to the applicant as a woman for the purposes of this discussion) can apply for an obtain a protective order against “Him” that contains prohibitions like these:

• prohibit Him from harassing, telephoning, contacting, or otherwise communicating with Her, directly or indirectly;
• order that He is excluded from Her residence and its premises, and order Him to stay away from Her residence, school, or place of employment , or any specified place frequented by Her and any designated family or household member of Hers.

Yet there is nothing in Utah law to prevent Her, after obtaining the protective order against Him, from:

• telephoning, contacting, or otherwise communicating with Him, directly or indirectly;
• from coming to His residence, school, or place of employment , or any specified place frequented by Him and any designated family or household member of His.

Under these circumstances, the problem that thus can arise (and all too often does arise) is that She will call or text or visit Him suggesting they talk or meet to “make up”. The poor guy thinks, “Great, She wants to put this behind us. So do I. Of course I’ll talk and/or meet with her. After all, it’s her idea, so if she wants to talk and/or meet (or have sex, etc.) with me, I can’t be blamed for accepting the invitation, right?”

Wrong.

It happens all the time in Utah: if She invites him to come over and talk (or have sex, etc.), so He cheerfully obliges, only to have his actions constitute a “violation” of the prohibitions against “contacting, or otherwise communicating with Her, even though it was her idea, her invitation, her enticements.

For years there have been efforts to include in Utah’s protective order statutes a provision that would make situations like this a defense to charges of violating a protective order, but they get shot down with the argument that such provisions would “expose the victim to unnecessary risk” or (my favorite) “have a chilling effect on applying for protective orders”. Its’ nonsense, but that’s the reason why.

Things are slowly getting better. One recent change to the protective order law now protects Him from being barred from his job, school, or church if She works at the same place or works at the same place or worships at the same place He does.

Eventually I believe Utah’s law will be amended to include the defense of “I was enticed” and will also punish Her if she entices Him for the purpose of setting him up (framing him) for a “violation” of the protective order.