The short answer is yes, however we have to apply logic here...I dont think anyone is trying to frame Terri especially LE, they are trying to find a missing child, I dont think that Kaine just decided he would make up all this and take the baby away with out reason, and I dont think that a judge would issue a restraining order even temperary that takes a child away from its mother, and if its not true than why is she not fighting it saying hell no thats not true..... So techinically its not he said she said, its He said and she isnt disputing it.
BBM
Judges take away parental contact when emergency restraining orders are issued
all the time. The more common scenario is for a woman to petition for a restraining order to be issued against an abusive man but the laws are not gender specific (nor should they be).
Anyone can petition for an emergency restraining order against anyone else and, if they make allegations that fall within certain parameters, the temporary restraining orders are almost always granted. There is usually little or no proof offered in the initial petition; the order is granted on allegations alone. All the judge is saying at that point is that the allegations fall into the parameters set by law to justify a restraining order.
Remember the 2005 emergency restraining order granted against David Letterman that prohibited him from using words such as "Oprah" to secretly woo the petitioner into marriage? That was a temporary restraining order. I highly doubt that the judge actually believed the petitioner's allegations!
After a temporary restraining order is granted, the respondent (the person targetted by the order) has a certain amount of time to request a show-cause hearing. If the respondent requests the hearing, it must be granted within a very short period of time (varies from state to state).
A show-cause hearing is just what it sounds like: the petitioner has to go back before the judge and show actual evidence to support the allegations. The respondent also has their chance to present their side of the story to show why the temporary restraining order should be modified or lifted.
That's what happened in the Letterman case. As soon as he was served, he requested a hearing. At the hearing, the petitioner was unable to provide evidence that backed up the allegations and the petition was dismissed.
A respondent may choose not to request a show-cause hearing for many reasons other than guilt. They may not really understand their rights under the law to contest it (even though, in my experience, process servers do try to give them a quick overview). They may be unable or unwilling to spend the money to contest it. They may feel that it is not to their own best advantage to contest the order.
The last is what I think may be going on here. TMH's criminal defence attorney may not want to put her in a position at this time to be forced to testify under oath. It's clear to any rational person that she is one of the main focuses of an investigation into the disappearance of a young child and he may not wish to put any part of his hand on the table at this point in time. I imagine he's unwilling to trade short term benefits for long term outcomes, as a general principle (isn't that the essence of being an adult?).
So, to sum up a long post, the judge is making no determination as to the facts of the petition, except that the allegations fall within certain parameters. The judge is definitely not saying the allegations are true or false; that would be left for a show-cause hearing.
Brevity is clearly not the soul of my wit.
It seems as if that is just as logical as any other at this point. Noone has indicated that Kyron left the building at all that morning.
