Order to separate boy and girl is voided

Citing lack of jurisdiction, the Superior Court has voided a Family Court judge’s order of protection that prevents a 17-year-old boy from having contact with his alleged 15-year-old girlfriend and the girl’s mother and the girl’s mother’s boyfriend.

In an order on Friday, Associate Judge Joseph N. Camacho dismissed with prejudice the criminal charge of contempt in the case filed against the boy.

That means the government cannot re-file the charge anymore.

Camacho ruled that the statute is clear—orders of protection are only authorized for protection against a family or household member who commits an act of domestic or family violence and that the Family Court does not have jurisdiction to issue orders of protection for activities that do not constitute “domestic or family violence,” or activities involving persons who are not “family members.”

The government argues there is jurisdiction because the Family Court is empowered to hear requests for restraining orders. However, Camacho said, the act of someone filing a petition in Family Court does not automatically give the Family Court jurisdiction over the claim.

“The petition must contain the necessary allegations that the Family Court has the statutory authority to hear for the Family Court to have…jurisdiction over the matter,” said Camacho, citing a precedent case.

And since he underlying court order is void and disobeying a void order is not contempt, the order of protection at issue “cannot form the basis for a contempt charge,” he said.

According to court records, a mother filed a petition in the CNMI Family Court on Feb. 20, 2019, pursuant to the Domestic and Family Violence Prevention Act of 2000.

The mother said her 15-year-old daughter has a 17-year-old boyfriend and that when her daughter is with the boyfriend, she “totally changes and even talks back to them in a disrespectful manner.”

Nothing on the petition lists any physical violence or threats of violence to any person, including the mother and daughter.

As alleged in the petition, the most recent event occurred on Feb. 10, 2019, in which the girl was dropped off at school by her parents but she left the school campus. At 3pm, the mother went to the home of one of the boyfriend’s friends, where her daughter was found. The daughter did not want to leave with the mother. The police and Division of Youth Services were called and the girl eventually left with the mother.

At 5:30pm that same day, the mother learned that her daughter had again left the home. At 7pm, the mother went looking for her daughter. The girl then followed her mother home.

At 8:30pm, the boyfriend arrived at the girl’s residence and said he was checking to see if his girlfriend was okay. The boyfriend had to be asked to leave the premises four times.

The time frame is unclear from the petition, but it is alleged that the boyfriend and his friends drove by the house of the girlfriend, shouting profanities and, “Chagi Kagman (Try Kagman!).”

The girl’s mother claimed that they need the restraining order because things were getting worse.

The mother said they have asked the Division of Youth Services and the Department of Public Safety for help and nothing has been done to assist them on the truancy of their daughter.

The girl did not request for the restraining order in the petition. She was not present at the hearing on the matter in Family Court.

An order of protection was entered in the Family Court case which, among other things, prevents the boyfriend from having any contact with the girl, the girl’s mother, and the mother’s boyfriend.

Last April 1, a police detective filed a complaint of delinquency under oath in the Juvenile Case. The detective said there was probable cause to support charges of contempt of court, disturbing the peace, and criminal mischief, over an incident that occurred on March 29, 2019.

At the preliminary hearing in the Juvenile Case last April 11, the detective testified that the alleged boyfriend contacted the girl via Facebook messenger. The detective also alleged that the boyfriend and the girl were together last March 29.

The mother testified that her daughter’s boyfriend did not send any message to her daughter, but that it was actually the girl’s friend.

The mother and her boyfriend testified that the girl’s boyfriend has not made any threats to anyone in their family, has not physically harmed anyone in the family, and has not committed any crimes against the family.

The mother further testified that she is mainly concerned with the two not obeying curfew.

The mother testified she was trying to get the authorities to help her work with her daughter’s attitude.

The mother testified that her daughter has skipped school about five times this year.

The mother’s boyfriend testified that the girl had previously run away 10 times.

On April 16, 2017, the Office of the Attorney General filed a complaint of delinquency against the 17-year-old boy. It alleged that the boy committed contempt when he contacted the girl and the girl’s mother last March 27 and 29.

The complaint also alleged that the boy went to the girl’s mother’s house with his friends and was told several times to leave her property, to which he did not listen, and started shouting profanities, including the phrase “Chagi Kagman” at her…”

The boy was arrested in the Juvenile Case and held at the Department of Corrections from March 28 until April 1.

A hearing was held last July 17 on the issue whether the order of protection issued by the Family Court is valid and enforceable.

The boy, through assistant public defender Heather Zona, argued that the order of protection is void and unenforceable because the Family Court lacks jurisdiction to issue the order.

The prosecution, through assistant attorney general Samantha Vickery, argued that, to the extent there is any defect in the order of protection, the order would be voidable, not void, and the boy would still have to obey the order until it was rescinded or modified.

In voiding the order of protection and dismissing the case, Camacho said the mother’s petition contains no allegations that the boy made any threats or committed any violent acts against her, her daughter, and her family members.

Camacho said there were no allegations that the boy harassed his alleged girlfriend.

The judge said the mother’s complaint appears to be more in line with general parenting issues—her daughter talks back to her parents disrespectfully, does not go to school, runs away, and does not obey her curfew.

Camacho said none of these activities constitute “family violence” as that term is defined in the Domestic and Family Violence Prevention Act.

More importantly, the judge noted, these issues are between the mother and her daughter, not the girl’s alleged boyfriend.