Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Protective Orders And Victim Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Judge declines to lift no-contact order for Emmanuel Gonzalez without complainant present
Summary
The court declined to convert a no-contact order to a "no harmful or injurious contact" order in Emmanuel Gonzalez’s case until the complainant appears or explicitly agrees; the judge stressed child-safety and CPS involvement may be appropriate.
Judge Stephanie Boyd declined a request to modify a no-contact order in the case of Emmanuel Gonzalez without the complainant present to state her wishes and to ensure child-safety protections are in place.
Why it matters: The court emphasized its gatekeeping role in protecting victims and ensuring conditions on bond or protective orders are set with the complainant’s input where allegations include violent conduct.
Defense counsel told the court the complainant indicated she would not oppose changing the order to a less restrictive form so the defendant could have third-party–supervised contact with his daughter. The prosecutor confirmed prior allegations and said the state wanted the victim protected given earlier assaults that involve the same complainant.
"I don't normally lift no contact orders without speaking with the complainant," Judge Boyd said on the record, adding that she would not sign an order modifying no-contact obligations "without the complainant telling me that's what she wants." The judge further observed that child-protection services ordinarily should be involved in cases with this level of alleged injury and that, absent the victim's presence, the court would not modify the protective conditions.
The court therefore kept the no-contact order in place and directed counsel to return on the scheduled date. The judge told the defendant that third-party contact through grandparents or an agreed-upon third party is the typical route for custody- or visitation-style contact when a no-contact order remains in force.
Discussion vs. decision: The exchange included defense requests and the prosecutor's statement of concern; the court made a formal decision to leave the no-contact order in effect pending the complainant’s direct input.
What’s next: The case was reset for a future hearing (June 9 in this docket) at which the court expects updated information about the complainant’s wishes and any appropriate civil or CPS involvement.
Speakers quoted in this story are listed in the article’s speaker section.
