A distance measure pronounced by the family court judge aims to protect the victim of domestic violence. In practice, the situation becomes complicated when it is the victim herself who re-establishes contact with the perpetrator, whether by phone, by going to their home, or by agreeing to meet. This scenario, common in practice, puts family members, lawyers, and law enforcement in a delicate position.
Distance measure initiated by the victim: what the law says since 2024
The non-compliance with the distance measure by the perpetrator of the violence is largely regulated by law and case law. The reverse case, where the victim herself violates the measure, raises distinct legal and practical questions.
See also : How to Easily Estimate the Weight of a Cast Iron Radiator Filled or Empty with Water
Since the law of June 13, 2024, the maximum duration of the protection order has increased to twelve months (up from six previously). The penalties faced by the perpetrator in case of violation have also been increased: three years of imprisonment and a fine of 45,000 euros. This reform mechanically extends the period during which the behavior of each party is monitored by the judiciary.
A point often misunderstood: the distance measure applies to the perpetrator of the violence, not to the victim. Under French law, the victim does not commit a criminal offense by re-establishing contact. One can consult the Graines de Blogueuses website to better prepare for a discussion with their lawyer on this specific topic.
Related reading : How to contact the Pacifica mutual insurance: addresses, numbers, and document submission
However, this voluntary contact has concrete effects on the procedure. The judge may consider that the victim is no longer in a dangerous situation, which weakens the maintenance or renewal of the protection order. The perpetrator can use these contacts to challenge the measures in court.
Concrete risks when the victim re-establishes contact with the perpetrator
In practice, the responses vary on this point, but several consequences regularly arise in judicial practice.
Weakening of the protection order
The family court judge may refuse to extend the order if evidence shows that the victim has re-established contact herself. The judge’s reasoning is based on the notion of danger: if the victim voluntarily approaches the perpetrator, demonstrating immediate danger becomes more difficult to sustain.
Impact on ongoing criminal proceedings
When a complaint for domestic violence is ongoing, re-establishing contact can be exploited by the perpetrator’s defense. The classic argument is that the facts were not so serious since the victim chose to return. This reasoning has no legal value on the merits, but it sometimes influences the assessment of the facts in court.
Direct physical danger
The cycle of domestic violence does not stop with a protection order. The “honeymoon” phase, where the perpetrator appears repentant and caring, often precedes a new escalation. Returning to contact during the distance measure exposes the victim to a resurgence of violence, sometimes more severe than before.
Protection measures to activate alongside the order
When supporting a victim who tends to re-establish contact, a purely legal approach is not enough. Several complementary measures exist.
- The serious danger telephone (TGD) allows the victim to alert law enforcement through geolocation in case of immediate danger. This device, assigned by the public prosecutor, remains active even if the victim has re-established occasional contact with the perpetrator.
- The anti-approach bracelet (BAR) triggers an automatic alert when the perpetrator approaches within a perimeter defined by the judge. This device operates independently of the victim’s will, making it particularly suitable for situations of re-establishing contact.
- Support from a specialized association (such as CIDFF or a victims’ aid association) offers psychological and legal follow-up that helps the victim understand the mechanisms of control and maintain the distance imposed by the measure.
Talking to your lawyer about non-compliance with the distance measure
The main difficulty remains communication. Many victims hesitate to inform their lawyer that they have re-established contact, out of shame or fear of losing judicial protection. This is a major tactical error.
An informed lawyer can adapt the procedural strategy before the other party exploits the situation. Specifically, they can request the judge to modify the order rather than risk its outright lifting. They can also present evidence showing that the contact was initiated by the perpetrator under the guise of reconciliation.
Since 2024, the creation of the immediate provisional protection order (OPPI) allows the judge to rule within hours in emergency situations. If contact has occurred and danger reappears, this expedited procedure offers a quick response without waiting for the usual hearing.
Distance measure and children: the most frequent practical knot
In many situations, the victim re-establishes contact not out of emotional choice, but to organize the visitation rights of the children. When the protection order prohibits any contact between the parents, the modalities of exercising parental authority must be set by the judge.
The family court judge can designate a neutral location (mediated meeting space) for child exchanges. Any informal organization of visitation rights outside the judicial framework weakens the distance measure. If the meeting space arrangement is too slow to implement, the lawyer can approach the judge to obtain specific transitional modalities.
The non-compliance with a distance measure by the victim is not a whim or inconsistency. It almost always falls within a mechanism of control or a practical organizational difficulty related to the children. A lawyer informed in advance can adapt the strategy, mobilize the BAR or the TGD, and provide the judge with the necessary elements to adjust the protection without removing it.