Right. How can I explain this so you can understand? Even though I have done about fifty times already.
AH has a temporary restraining order which expires soon. They are basically given pretty much on demand with a very low evidence threshold because this is the best way of ensuring that nobody in genuine danger is refused immediate protection because they can't immediately get proof.
But victims need restraining orders extended they are expected to use the time between hearings to gather the necessary information to provide evidence which backs up the claims that they have made. And the absolute first and most essential component of that is a police report.
These are courts. They deal in evidence. They deal in facts. It's not Mumsnet. They don't make decisions on the basis that people seem nice and surely a woman wouldn't tell a lie.
They have been presented this week with a woman who has told them that she is in such danger from JD she is in fear of her life and needs immediate protection. Yet in a few weeks potentially they are going to be faced by the same woman telling them that despite being in fear of her life she has failed to take the minimum expected step needed in order for that protection to continue: filing a police report. There are circumstances where this might be accepted, but again, these circumstances will need to have some sort of provable basis and will also be weighed up against her claim of being in fear of her life. So a court might well accept that someone suffering from severe PTSD who can't leave the house, is struggling to interact with anybody and has little support to make a filing might be given some leeway. A woman who is engaging well with the legal process, has good legal representation and seems to be operating in a pretty functional way? Well a court is going to question what reason she has exactly for not making a police report that outweighs her apparent fear for her life. And she is going to have to answer that. And she will need a fucking good answer. Because a court is perfectly entitled to view not wanting to hurt his career or not wanting to go through a criminal trial or a myriad of other reasons as far, far too flimsy to plausibly justify jeopardising a restraining order which is apparently needed because of a genuine fear for her life. They're going to question if they can accept that fear for life is genuine if it can be dismissed for flimsy reasons. And even if a restraining order is genuinely needed if the petitioner is not prepared to take very simple steps in order to secure one.
They're courts. They deal in justice for everybody involved. They also don't want to look like tits. So no, they're not going to simply say 'Oh no, that's fine, we'll just keep giving you orders in your favour with no evidence and no evidence of any attempt to procure any evidence because you seem like a really nice woman and he seems like a bit of a rotter'.
It's also slightly laughable for people who are confidently declaring that JD must be guilty on the basis of the fact an untested allegation has been made to accuse me of being prejudiced. I would say that determining truth based on possession of a vagina is pretty extreme as far as prejudice goes.
Pointing out that courts operate on the basis of evidence and facts...not so much.