CourtWatch monitored the Villella injunction hearing held on March 2nd, which involved a lengthy conference at the bench so the press could not hear. What wasn't reported in the media is that the "no hostile contact" was the Judge's idea!
In spite of having his own attorney, it appeared to me that the petitioner in this case was intimidated into acquiescing. I hope the petitioner doesn't get a false sense of security thinking that this injunction has any teeth.
There is no wiggle room in Florida Statute 741.31(4)(a)5 for "no hostile contact." Intimate partners have numerous non-verbal ways they communicate with one another. In a healthy relationship, these might constitute an "inside joke" or word/gesture of endearment. In an abusive relationship, they engender fear.
An abuser can be very crafty about the methods they use to intimidate their victim. For example, one woman's husband routinely removed his wedding ring and set it upon the fireplace mantel before he beat her. The gesture terrified her. When she finally had the courage to seek an injunction, and they were in court, he calmly removed his wedding ring and set it on the table.
Needless to say, the meaning was crystal clear to his wife. It was a hostile gesture that communicated his intention to do violence. Yet no one else in the courtroom even realized the implication of his action.
Therefore, the concept of a "No Hostile Contact" order is ridiculous. Imagine the wife in the above scenario attempting to convince a law enforcement officer to arrest her husband because he removed his wedding band. No officer would. And the abuser knows it.
Non-hostile contact orders simply empower an abuser to continue abusing - albeit in a less overtly "hostile" manner than before.
They are simply not enforceable.