Once granted for a period of up to two years, a civil protection order (CPO) can be modified, withdrawn or extended.  D.C. Code § 16-1005(d). 

In order to extend a CPO, the party seeking the protection –the “petitioner” – must file a motion.    

Such a motion should be filed before the existing order expires, with notice to the other party and with enough lead-time for the court to hold a hearing if necessary. 

Extensions are typically granted in one-year increments. 

The petitioner does not need to prove that the “respondent” violated the protective order.  However, the petitioner does need to convince the Court (1) that there is “good cause” to extend the order and (2) that the benefit of continued protection for the petitioner justifies the continued restriction on the respondent’s liberty.  Ramirez v. Salvattera, 232 A.3d 169 (D.C. 2020). 

The court will use this balancing of interests to determine not only whether or not to extend the CPO but also what provisions to include in the extended protective order. 

“Good cause” is defined as “a cognizable danger that the respondent will commit or threaten to commit a criminal offense against the petitioner in the coming year if the CPO is not extended.”

The burden remains on the petitioner to prove by a preponderance of the evidence (that is, that it is more likely than not) that the CPO is required.

In making its determination, the court is to consider the “entire mosaic” of the case, including “the parties’ relationship and interactions both before and after the issuance of the CPO and any prior extension of the CPO, as well as the parties’ current circumstances.”  In other words, the court can consider the same factors and events that laid the basis for the original CPO. 

Moreover, unlike criminal cases in which evidence is generally limited to acts directly associated with the matter at hand, the court can consider prior criminal activity and other “bad acts” by the respondent.  This allows the court to determine the petitioner’s state of mind and to consider whether the petitioner’s fears are justified. 

If the court decides to extend the CPO, it can impose the same type of restrictions as with the original order.  For example, it can order the respondent to stay away from certain places or locations. 

It can require the respondent to refrain from contacting the petitioner and other people in person, by telephone, in writing, through electronic or social media, or in any other manner either directly or indirectly through a third party.

Finally, the extended order can require the respondent to reimburse the petitioner for attorney’s fees; to seek treatment for mental health or alcohol/drug addiction issues; to participate in domestic violence awareness programs; or to fulfill any other conditions that the court deems necessary.