What's the difference between harass and pester in a non-molestation order?

[NewPoll]

It states: "the respondent is forbidden to intimidate, harass, pester or molest the Applicant".

Why put harass and pester when they mean the same thing?

Also, intimidate is pretty close too! I find it confusing.

are you the one being ordered not to harass etc someone ?
if not, why does it matter. it is to cover all bases, or excuses.

As the previous poster says it’s to cover all bases.

In terms of harass or pester. In my opinion pester would be small repetitive acts, which on their own would not be an issue, but together combine to pestering. So ringing someone - not an issue. Ringing them 100 times - pestering.

Harass could be one unpleasant action,

It's to protect me and there are lots of little episodes that I can't tell whether would quality as a breach of the non/molestation.

So I checked the terms harass and pester and frustratingly couldn't see any difference, so that didn't help me

They are different words and mean different things:

Harass: subject to aggressive pressure or intimidation.

Pester: trouble or annoy (someone) with frequent or persistent requests or interruptions

Pester can include things that would be positive if they happened once but become negative due to excessive repetition. Eg a small child calling 'mummy I love you' is lovely once but it is pestering when they do it 47 times when you are supposed to be doing something else. Harassment is always negative and doesn't have to be as frequent as pestering.

I would say that pester means lots of petty contact questions or comments in a fairly short time period that individually aren’t an issue but taken together are - if you see what I mean.
I think harrass means more serious individual incidents that may or may not occur as a series of incidents or as single incidents

If you have a non-mol, why is the person allowed to contact you at all?

We still live together. It's long and complicated and I can't say too much or anonymous stops being anonymous

But if I have just one example: if the order states that the parent NOT allocated to childcare should remove themselves from
the area and not prepare meals but as as though they are not in the building, but they keep either making meals or asking to make meals several times each week despite being asked not to even ask about it anymore...

Is that pestering?

Why have you not managed to get an occupation order as well?

They are normally given at the same time to stop these issues.

@NewPoll

But if I have just one example: if the order states that the parent NOT allocated to childcare should remove themselves from the area and not prepare meals but as as though they are not in the building, but they keep either making meals or asking to make meals several times each week despite being asked not to even ask about it anymore...

Is that pestering?

Well, it's deliberately ignoring the specific terms of the order, whatever way you paint it.

I'd definitely provide a list of times, dates and specifics to your solicitor and they can decide whether it's pestering (pleeeeeeease can I cook, pleeeeeeeease can I stay, I've cooked already, so tough shit) or a specific Not Abiding By The Terms of the Order and it doesn't matter whether it's done 'nicely', aggressively or completely obliviously.

It doesn't seem appropriate to have this order if you're sharing a house, particularly if there are common areas Definitely get your solicitor to try to push for an occupation order or look at living elsewhere.

@RedHelenB

It doesn't seem appropriate to have this order if you're sharing a house, particularly if there are common areas Definitely get your solicitor to try to push for an occupation order or look at living elsewhere.

His behaviour is what's making an Occupation Order more likely - as even with a NMO, he's not abiding by it.

It seems very unfair to have an order that stipulates you can't use the kitchen at certain times though.

@RedWingBoots

Why have you not managed to get an occupation order as well?

They are normally given at the same time to stop these issues.

The solicitor said it's draconian to remove a man from his house unless it's for a REALLY big bad reason. Obviously my experience DA wasn't deemed big enough.

@RedHelenB

It seems very unfair to have an order that stipulates you can't use the kitchen at certain times though.

It's not stipulating that; only keeping hands off the childcare if it's not your allocated night. So, no feeding kids or entertaining them, but allowing the other parent to, as though you were not there

"His behaviour is what's making an Occupation Order more likely - as even with a NMO, he's not abiding by it."

I'm kind of hoping this could be the case.

That's still a really weird set up. And harmful psychologically to the kids. Ridiculous for a court to have granted it imo, the sooner the parents live apart the better for the children.

It is extremely damaging for them. I find it hard that they awarded emergency non nil but not occupation order. I can only imagine it's the decision made by a judge who has no recent experience of family life or something. Nobody can understand it: CAMHS, Police, school... everyone says it's madness. Other than solicitors who say a judge would view it as draconian to remove a man from his house.

That is because solicitors know the case law that binds the Court's hands, whilst all those other agencies do not.

Charmers v Johns 1991 is the leading case, followed in G v G and Dolan v Corby.

Until a higher court overturns those, or we have further legislation, the position is that an OO excluding one party is only available in exceptional cases.

You need strong evidence of significant harm attributable to the conduct of the respondent. Not the normal harm of divorcing parents.

I-'ve succeeded several times with medical evidence/school evidence of the impact on the children, but that is generally what it takes. Or, of course, breaches of the non mol.

It sucks, but it's not your Judge's fault.

The test for getting a non mol, and for getting it made ex parte are two completely different things, and the test for an ouster order is different again.

This is not surprising. A non mol does not interfere with anyone's rights. No one has the right to intimidate harassment or pester anyone else. An occupation order, however, directly interferes with someone's right to live in their own property. Therefore inevitably, it's a much much bigger ask.

Chalmers v Johns. Not Charmers. Flipping autocorrect.

Has a judge actually refused the occupation order or is it the case that the solicitors won't apply for one?

Your situation is completely untenable and as far from the best interests of the children as it could possibly be.

In your example, I would argue he is pestering and in breach of the non mol.

I imagine the judge has refused to make a without notice occupation order, have you even had your return date, OP?

It's all very confusing because when he breached the non-mol before, it was automatically agreed, whereas, at the court hearing he would have had a chance to contest it and demand undertakings instead.

I was told the full occupation order wasn't granted but had been incorporated into the NMO by way of prohibiting him from my bedroom. Apparently that's all you can hope for without applying with notice, which would be contested and a length legal battle.

But because of the constant breaches, even though they're not hitting me or anything, they're still breaches. And I need to go for the occupation order as he's also contesting everything else so all the various courts will be long and drawn out. This will not be a quick divorce.