The Family Rules Committee presented a new rule for extreme‑risk protection orders (IRPOs) that clarifies the procedural path when a family member or a prosecutor seeks a temporary or extended order to remove firearms from an individual.
Judge Amy Davenport said the statute establishes IRPOs as family‑rules proceedings and the committee drafted procedures to reflect that framework. The rule makes clear that a household member who seeks a temporary ex parte order will be treated as an “interested party” who receives notice of hearings and orders, but does not become a party once the state’s attorney takes control of the case following issuance of an order.
Davenport explained the committee wrestled with how to treat a denied temporary petition: whether the household petitioner should be able to obtain a hearing or whether the matter should be handled by the prosecutor. The committee concluded that once an order is decided (granted or denied), the state’s attorney typically controls the matter and the household petitioner should seek further action through the prosecutor rather than litigate directly.
The committee also addressed notice and standing: household members will receive notice of hearings and orders, and the statute’s language directing family rules rather than criminal rules governed drafting choices. Davenport said the committee had input from members of the network and from stakeholders and received no public comments during the rule’s comment period.
Committee members suggested the judiciary and Legislature may want to reexamine statutory language that references separate court divisions now unified in the Superior Court system. Davenport flagged an ongoing working group on firearms relinquishment and storage that may produce further recommendations by mid‑November.