Apparently attorneys are objecting to evidence of other acts of conduct in a protective order. Not necessarily the act that prompted the protective order - especially in modifications and renewals. Since this seems to be admissible under 405(b), has anyone had to respond to the objections before. Isn't charater a essential element of getting a prot. ord.? How do you respond?

I haven't had that specific objection, but have always offered "other acts" as part of establishing that family violence is likely to occur in the future. That seems to be one of the "other purposes" that rule 404(b) contemplates, since those additional acts show intent and lack of mistake.

Maybe I'm confused. In a protective order modification, are we not offering the bad acts to show that each act happened, thus requiring a modification? This is different from the situation where a defendant is accused of X, and we show he committed bad acts A, B, and C, which are only relevant because a person who did A, B, and C is more likely to do X.

Here, we want to show that respondent has been sitting outside her work place staring at her office window, parking down the street from her house and playing loud Peter Gabriel music on a jam box, and serenading her school with a Vuvuzela every day during study hall. Those acts show why particular modifications should be made, not that he in fact beat her up in a drunken rage one night. Right?

You're right that is the purpose. But apparently there have been objections -- the ADA handling the PO asked me for case law and I couldn't find any exactly on point. So I thought I would pose the question on the TDCAA forum. I think 404(b) maybe be better than 405(b), but either one should suffice to allow the evidence in.

What may be happening here is some confusion regarding the rule that whatever happened prior to the issuance of the protective order is barred by res judicata from being used to obtain a modification of the order. That evidence may be referenced to put the original protective order in context, but the modification has to be supported solely by evidence of bad acts that occured after the protective order was signed. Using JohnR's example, you could argue that the protective order was granted because Def committed acts A, B & C and now he has committed acts X, Y & Z and based solely on X, Y & Z the order needs to be modified. A common problem is that Def commits acts A, B, C, D, E & F, but you only raised A, B & C to get the protective order. D, E & F were superfluous or weak. Now you want a modification and all you have is act X, which is weak, so you try to connect it to acts D, E, & F to show a pattern. The court will rightly refuse to let you go into D, E & F because you could have raised them int he original proceeding. All you are left with is wimpy act X.