A distance measure pronounced by a judge aims to protect a victim of domestic or intrafamily violence. The situation becomes complicated when the victim themselves does not respect this measure, by re-establishing contact with the person targeted by the prohibition or inviting them to return to the home.
This scenario, far from being marginal, places the victim in a delicate legal position and can compromise the entire protection system. Discussing this issue with a lawyer requires understanding what the law provides, what the judge can deduce from it, and what the protected person risks concretely.
Criminal consequences when the victim ignores the distance measure
The most common confusion concerns the target of the sanction. The violation of a protection order constitutes a distinct offense, punishable by law. This qualification primarily targets the violent person who violates the prohibition on approaching.
When the victim takes the initiative to contact, the legal situation changes in nature. The perpetrator of the violence may argue that they did not violate the prohibition since it was the protected person who requested their presence. This analysis, reported on the Graines de Blogueuses blog, highlights a blind spot in the system.
However, the judge retains their power of appreciation. A contact initiated by the victim does not automatically suspend the distance measure. The order remains in effect as long as it has not been lifted by a judicial decision. On the other hand, the resumption of voluntary contact may weaken the credibility of the danger invoked during the initial request.
Protection order and likelihood evidence before the family court judge
Since the law of June 13, 2024, the protection system has been strengthened by the creation of a provisional immediate protection order (OPPI) deliverable within 24 hours. This accelerated mechanism modifies the strategy to discuss with your lawyer, especially when the victim hesitates to engage in a lengthy litigation process.
The evidence expected by the judge is based on the likelihood of the acts of violence and the current danger, not on a prior criminal conviction. Acceptable documents include:
- Messages (SMS, emails, screenshots of messaging) documenting the violence or harassment
- Testimonies from relatives, neighbors, or health professionals who have witnessed the events
- Medical certificates describing the injuries or the psychological state of the person
- A precise chronology of the events, reconstructed with the help of the lawyer
When the victim has themselves re-established contact with the perpetrator, these same documents can be turned against them. An exchange of messages showing an invitation to return to the home weakens the argument of immediate danger. The lawyer must then reconstruct the context: psychological control, economic pressure, presence of children at home.
The role of control in the judge’s assessment
Psychological control is a factor recognized by case law to explain why a victim re-establishes contact with their aggressor. It is not an abstract concept: it can be documented through testimonies from psychologists, exchanges showing a control pattern, or testimonies from those close to the victim.
Your lawyer can argue that the resumption of contact does not indicate a disappearance of danger, but rather a manifestation of the control mechanism itself. This interpretation is not automatically accepted by the judge, and field feedback varies on this point depending on the jurisdictions.
Preparing the discussion with your criminal and family law lawyer
Addressing the issue of a distance measure that you have not respected requires transparency. A lawyer cannot effectively defend a situation they do not fully understand. Hiding the resumption of contact is the worst possible strategy, as the opposing party will produce this evidence at the most unfavorable time.
During the first meeting, gather all factual elements without filter:
- The exact dates and circumstances of the contacts you initiated
- The reasons that led you to re-establish contact (children, housing, financial pressure, indirect threat)
- Any element showing that the violent person exploited this resumption of contact to intensify their control
The lawyer will then assess whether a request for the maintenance or renewal of the order remains viable, or if the strategy should be redirected towards a separate criminal complaint for harassment or violence.
Expanded rights for couples without cohabitation
A point often overlooked should be raised during the discussion with your lawyer: the protection order is now accessible to couples who have never cohabited. The absence of cohabitation is no longer an obstacle. This evolution directly concerns situations of post-breakup harassment in short or recent relationships, where the victim may minimize the seriousness of the facts.
Legal strategy when the distance measure has been compromised
The central question your lawyer will need to resolve is: should a new protection order be requested, or should the case be moved to the criminal arena?
If the resumption of contact has been documented by the other party, a new request for a protection order is likely to be rejected for lack of likelihood of danger. The family court judge may consider that the victim has themselves neutralized the system.
Filing a complaint for new facts remains possible, regardless of the fate of the civil order. Acts of violence committed after the resumption of contact constitute separate offenses. The lawyer can then articulate two paths: a criminal procedure for recent facts, and a request for OPPI if the danger becomes immediate again.
The law does not punish the victim who has not respected their own protection measure. No criminal sanction targets the protected person.
However, the consequences lie in the evidentiary field: the credibility of the case is affected, and reconstructing the evidence of danger requires more in-depth legal work. This is precisely why transparency with your lawyer, from the first exchange, conditions the continuation of any process in both criminal and family law.